Another UCLA Law alum for Snowie:
Click to expand
But we’re not talking about the recent film 47 Ronin, non non.
We’re talking about plain old Ronin, from when you were in elementary school, Gentle Reader.
Now the thing about Dean Frank is that he’s new in town. The things I disagree with him about have to do him embracing certain corrupt local institutions. Of course he sometimes needs to deal with such entities to get his job done, but he doesn’t display an awareness of the fact he’s living in the most corrupt big American city west of Chicago. For instance.
No matter, I entirely agree that Ronin is worth your time. (And I’m shocked that its Rotten Tomatoes score is in the ’60s. This is one of the best films you can see with a rating that low.)
You oughtta watch the whole thing.
“The University of California’s Hastings College of the Law (UC Hastings or Hastings) is a top tier public law school in San Francisco, California, located in the Civic Center neighborhood. Founded in 1878 by Serranus Clinton Hastings, the first Chief Justice of California, it was the first law school of the University of California…”
Here’s the news, from a couple days back.
Let’s start with Hastings.
Here’s the reaction:
“Rankings Update: US News & World Report 2015
US News & World Report magazine has released its annual rankings of institutions of higher education. UC Hastings remains among the top law schools in the nation, with a reputation score on par with the top 25 from lawyers, judges, and peers. In “Law Specialties,” UC Hastings ranked #12 in Dispute Resolution and #25 in Clinical Training. Nevertheless, our overall rank has moved from #48 to #54.”
And this is from a year ago:
“Rankings Update: US News & World Report 2014
Last night, US News & World Report magazine released its annual rankings of institutions of higher education. UC Hastings remains among the top fifty law schools, tied with several others at #48. UC Hastings programs also rank in the top tier of “Law Specialties” this year, including Dispute Resolution at #9, Tax Law at #17, and Clinical Training at #27.”
And this isn’t from Hastings, but it touches on some relevant issues. From two years back:
Now on to University of San Francisco School of Law:
“Tonight’s Town Hall Meeting is at 5pm in Room 100, Dean Trasvina will be discussing the rankings news; however, the majority of the meeting will be Q&A. Please attend and share your thoughts on the state of the law school, programming ideas you may have, curriculum changes you want to see, or anything else you have on your mind. The Q&A should start around 5:15/5:20, so if you have class until 5:20 you will still have an opportunity to be heard.”
I imagine this situation is like having a twelve-month headache and thinking, upon awakening, oh yeah, the headache, the constant, nagging headache I gotta deal with…
Well, read it and weep, San Francisco. University of California, Hastings College of Law, which used to be a Top 20* law school, is now out of the Top 50, per the US News:
51. Baylor University (+3)
51. Penn State University (+13)
51. University of Richmond (+2)
54. Pepperdine University (+7)
54. UC Hastings (-6)
54. University of Connecticut (+4)
54. University of Nebraska—Lincoln (+7)
RNP. San Francisco (five-way tie at #144 last year with Duquesne, South Texas, Memphis, and Suffolk)
And RNP stands for Rank Not Published.
*It was in the teens for a bit of the 1990′s.
Seems that this would be easy to wire up, you know, wipers on = headlights on.
(My aging Toyota has Daytime Running Lights but they don’t cut the mustard in CA when it’s raining.)
Anyway, just asking, beleaguered SF cab industry…
V C Section 24400 Headlamps on Motor Vehicles
Headlamps on Motor Vehicles
24400. (a) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall be equipped with at least two headlamps, with at least one on each side of the front of the vehicle, and, except as to vehicles registered prior to January 1, 1930, they shall be located directly above or in advance of the front axle of the vehicle. The headlamps and every light source in any headlamp unit shall be located at a height of not more than 54 inches nor less than 22 inches.
(b) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall be operated during darkness, or inclement weather, or both, with at least two lighted headlamps that comply with subdivision (a).
(c) As used in subdivision (b), “inclement weather” is a weather condition that is either of the following:
(1) A condition that prevents a driver of a motor vehicle from clearly discerning a person or another motor vehicle on the highway from a distance of 1,000 feet.
(2) A condition requiring the windshield wipers to be in continuous use due to rain, mist, snow, fog, or other precipitation or atmospheric moisture.
Added Sec. 2, Ch. 415, Stats. 2004. Effectve January 1, 2005. Operative July 1, 2005.
Mmmm, what if these people are just looking at maps – is that OK under California law these days?
Click to expand
What does this mean to you?
As seen in gentrified Hayes Valley:
Click to expand
To me, it meant what if your tax preparer got caught overstaying his visa and then got deported and then who the hell would defend your return come audit time and that’s why you ought to hire a fully-fledged ‘Murican to help you with your taxes.
But it turns out that it’s just a rent-seeking trade guild.
I’ll tell you, I know a little bit about how people get into trouble with such alphabet soups as the IRS, the BOE and the FTB. (Oh man, if an auditor asks a bar owner why he why buys 200 kegs a month but only sells 50, you know, officially, he’ll start talking about employee theft and spoilage and, gee, look at all that beer in the lines, well that’s probably 100 keg’s worth right there.)
So that’s real life.
But I aint ever met anybody who needed to worry about, “What If My Tax Preparer is Not Legal?”
Here’s the latest effort from CW Nevius, who’s taking a break from being spokesman for San Francisco’s right-side-of-the-aisle political faction to go on a “bit of a rant” against local pedestrians. But what’s up with this?
“Even when they are in the right, I worry about them. When the traffic light countdown gets to five or six, they step confidently into the crosswalk — which is their right…”
Don’t you have an editor, Nevius? Oh, that’s right, you’re too old and experienced to have an editor, and plus, editors cost money, that’s right.
But don’t you have a fact checker, Nevius? Oh, that’s right, you’re too old and experienced to have a fact checker, and plus, fact checkers cost money, that’s right.
But don’t you have a photographer, Nevius? Oh, that’s right, photographers cost money. So all your observations, we’ll just have to take your word about them. OK fine. BTW, [sarcasmmode ON] nice stock photo you’ve got there, Neve. “Cause a stock photo taken in the People’s Republic of China, you know, from more than a thousand li away, well, that really illustrates how “militant” and “freaking nuts” San Francisco peds are, huh? [sarcasmmode OFF]
And oh, BTW Neve, the peds of SF aren’t militant, not at all. Try to find a different word for what you mean.
Of course you’re new in town, I get that. Sure, welcome to San Francisco, Neve.
But you’re doing a half-assed job doing your half-time gig.
You need to try harder.
*”Walk, Wait, or Don t Walk
21456. Whenever a pedestrian control signal showing the words “WALK” or “WAIT” or “DON’T WALK” or other approved symbol is in place, the signal shall indicate as follows:
(a) “WALK” or approved “Walking Person” symbol. A pedestrian facing the signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal, but shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that signal is first shown.
(b) Flashing or steady “DON’T WALK” or “WAIT” or approved “Upraised Hand” symbol. No pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of the signal, but any pedestrian who has partially completed crossing shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety zone or otherwise leave the roadway while the “WAIT” or “DON’T WALK” or approved “Upraised Hand” symbol is showing.
Amended Ch. 413, Stats. 1981. Effective January 1, 1982.”
1. YOU NEED TO BE IN THE CROSSWALK WHEN YOU GET HIT. This one’s pretty basic. And actually, it’s pretty flexible IRL. So let’s say you’re over the line a bit, your foot was 18 inches away from the white paint, well that could be OK. This rule becomes important if you’re halfway between blocks and you start jaywalking – a top cause of death of peds in SF. There’ve been many cases of this on the streets of San Francisco lately, like Hayes, Lombard, Masonic, Market, I could go on and on.
2. YOU CAN’T START TOO EARLY. This is called jumping the light. So of course, you’ve got to wait for the green light (or green WALK signal), you already know that. BUT THAT”S NOT ALL. You’ve also got to wait for traffic legally in the intersection to clear the intersection. So, GREEN DOES NOT MEAN “GO.” Green means you need to look for traffic clearing the intersection. And if that traffic isn’t over the speed limit and if that traffic entered the intersection on a yellow (which is totally OK under CA law, generally) and you step off and get hit, then, surprise, you’re the one at fault. So yes, you were in the crosswalk, but the collision is your fault, sorry.
3. YOU CAN’T START TOO LATE. This means that DON’T WALK means don’t walk. Now, in many places about town, you don’t have a ped-only signal telling you what to do. So, you’re allowed to start crossing on a green all the way until a yellow light appears. Effectively, the yellow light is your DON’T WALK signal. Of course this means that you might still be in the crosswalk when the light turns green for cross traffic. But now the law is in your favor, ped. The law says that cross traffic needs to wait for you to clear the intersection.
4. YOU CAN’T GO TOO SLOW. This one’s easy – it means you’re not supposed to stop during your trip across the street as best I can figure. (Leaving aside the law, there are standards for how long peds should have to cross an intersection, but they get thrown out the window when SF deals with 100-foot-plus wide monsters like horrible, horrible Octavia Boulevard, oh well.)
5. YOU CAN’T GO TOO FAST. Ooh, joggers. Your California Vehicle Code was written without concern for joggers, pretty much. So if you’re sprinting into an intersection and get hit by a MUNI, look for the SFPD to put the blame on you, yes, even though you were in the crosswalk.
Click to expand
So that’s reality.
But if you’d prefer a distorted, rose-colored view of reality, feel free to surf on over StreetsBlog SF (Straight Outta Park Slope!), or the SFBC (declining membership these days, despite being sponsored by SFGov SFMTA MUNI DPT) or Walk SF (sponsored by let’s-build-high-near-the-Waterfront real estate interests).
(You can take the boy out of the East Bay (and plop him in a SoMA condo), but you can’t take the East Bay out of the boy.)
Gentle Reader, consider CW Nevius and his most recent bit advocating for the oppressed white millionaire homeowners of Russian Hill – this time he’s acting at the behest of Supervisor Mark Farrell (R., District 2)
Click to expand
Now I think the word you’re looking for, CW Nevius, is trolley with an “e,” as in potatoe.
Except it aint a trolley, it’s a cable car. To wit:
“…electric tram (streetcar), sometimes confused with a cable car.”
And the vehicle code section cited here is wrong:
“The problem, says Deputy City Attorney Buck Delventhal, is California Vehicle Code 21106.1…”
CW Nevius, if you’re going to take the trouble to cite a law, why not take the time to do it the right way? Do you feel overworked, CW? You shouldn’t. Moving on…
And there’s this:
“Stefani says Farrell’s office was unaware of the 1987 law…”
Uh, former law? Or former bill? Did the “law” sunset automatically? And was it ever signed by The Duke in the first place? I don’t think so actually.
You see, CW Nevius, what you should look at are the reasons why the millionaires’ efforts always fail. Try this on for size:
“The streets of a city belong to the people of the state, and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen, subject to legislative control or such reasonable regulations as to the traffic thereon or the manner of using them as the legislature may deem wise or proper to adopt and impose.’ … ‘Streets and highways are established and maintained primarily for purposes of travel and transportation by the public, and uses incidental thereto. Such travel may be for either business or pleasure…”
Nevius, why don’t you retire or go back to sports, srsly? Then you’d get replaced by somebody who would do your job better than you, right? Wouldn’t that be a win-win?
But before you do that, why don’t you fix this**`?
“Jose had been struck by a late-’90s, silver, four-door sedan as he stepped off the curb at Oak and Scott.”
“And the intersection of Fell and Scott, where Jose was hit, has consistently been described as one of the city’s most dangerous.”
*Looks like somebody is striking a pose on the crosswalk:
I’m a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the
Yeah on the catwalk on the crosswalk, yeah
I do my little turn on the crosswalk
**I actually believed The Neve on the Fell and Scott thing, so I was going to go out there a week or two later on a Tuesday night at around the same time on the theory that this was somebody coming home during the evening drive. But then I saw that the actual location was on Oak so now I think the driver isn’t on a commuting schedule. You know, I’ve got a Canon 5D, crank the ISO up to 25,600, use a simple 200mm 2.8 prime to see if I could see some damage and get a plate. I mean it might have been worth the effort.