Dave
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Dave
That’s really the challenge of covering public issues, isn’t it? You want to be thorough and fair, but you also need to reveal its significance and meaning to the readers. I think at the Daily News we’ve done a better job of that than most places because we’re a little less chained to a certain AP style , and we’ve always been encouraged to come up with a lead that makes the impact clear and hard hitting. I think the business needs to do that. It needs to pick stories that have meaning to people and write them in a way that has meaning. I think at the Daily News we’ve been a little better in that respect. That’s also one of the things that’s interested me about columns. There are some stories that needed more voice, where you can say “this is what’s wrong”. The great thing about this paper is that it’s given me the freedom to write news stories and columns as part of the same job, and I like how the one rule at the Daily News is that there are no rules.
-- Soon-to-be-former Daily News senior writer Dave Davies, "exit interview" with Phawker.com
I can guarantee you that -- regardless of the outcome of some little football game out west somewhere -- at least one Texas Longhorn is going out as a winner tonight. That would be my longtime colleague and friend Dave Davies. I don't think that any of my co-workers at the Daily News -- as unique and talented as all of them are -- would disagree with me when I say that Dave has been the heart and soul of the newspaper ever since he first walked in the door at 400 North Broad Street.
Dave was always just a Daily News kind of guy -- a rabble-rouser and a cabbie and a teacher who finally came to journalism for the only reason that anybody should: He loved it. Specializing in local politics and government, Dave has been relentless -- right up to his very last day here, which is today -- in his core belief that public officials should be ethical and should be held accountable for their actions. But even as he chased after some of the most notorious bad actors in the brass-knuckles world of Philadelphia politics -- and there are way too many of these -- he was always remarkably fair and even-tempered in his pursuit. You always sensed that he was doing this not because he wanted awards or to make a bigger name for himself, but simply because...he lived in Philadelphia, and he just wanted it to be a better place.
That made Dave a mentor and a role model to pretty much everybody who passed through the Daily News newsroom these last couple of decades. Whenever I wondered whether I was being fair or was staying on track with a story that I was working on, Dave was usally the first person I would turn to for advice. Part of that may have also been just that the dude was there in the newsroom all the time -- somehow finding the time eventually to juggle two high-profile jobs at the same time, when he became Terry Gross' main substitute for NPR's flagship interview show "Fresh Air". Now that he's leaving to work full-time at WHYY, there's been talk of lobbying the powers-that-be to fill his job slot, but Dave himself is irreplaceable. There's one silver lining in this, which is that Dave will be only a few blocks away -- still fighting for Philadelphia, just from a different address.
Comments (86)
And also, fair enough legatus. However, I'd argue that Obama's "prejudgement" will be insignificant to the sentiment of people in the ME relative to the message sent by trying him in open court where he has full opportunity to mount a defense.— Talking point sleuth- And: -snip- the rules of war apply only to those involved in a lawfully declared war, and not to something that the government merely calls a war. Only Congress can declare war — and thus trigger the panoply of the government’s military powers that come with that declaration. Among those powers is the ability to use military tribunals to try those who have caused us harm by violating the rules of war...... the Supreme Court has consistently found that only a declaration of war by the Congress allows the operation of a military tribunals against those accused of violating the laws of war.... In the 1960s, when Army draft offices and college ROTC facilities were attacked and bombed, those charged were quite properly tried in federal courts. And when Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal courthouse in Oklahoma City; and Omar Abdel Rahman attempted in 1993 to blow up the World Trade Center, which housed many federal offices; and when Zacarias Moussaoui was accused in the 9/11 attacks,all were tried in federal courts. The “American Taliban,” John Walker Lindh, and the notorious would-be shoe bomber, Richard Reid, were tried in federal courts. Even the “Ft. Dix Six,” five of whom were convicted in a plot to invade a U.S. Army post in New Jersey, were tried in federal court....If the president could declare war on any person or entity or group simply by calling his pursuit of them a “war,” there would be no limit to the government’s ability to use the tools of war to achieve its ends. We have a “war” on drugs; can drug dealers be tried before military tribunals? We have a “war” on the Mafia; can mobsters be sent to Gitmo and tried there? The Obama administration has arguably declared “war” on Fox News. Are Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly in danger of losing ... constitutional rights to a government hostile to...opinions?— Talking point sleuth
"the rules of war apply only to those involved in a lawfully declared war,".. Not what the law states. Applicable law is as follows:SEC. 1801. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ‘‘Military Commissions Act of 2009’’. SEC. 1802. MILITARY COMMISSIONS. Chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:.......‘‘(7) UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT.—The term ‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’ means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who— ‘‘(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; ‘‘(B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or ‘‘(C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter............‘‘§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions ‘‘Any alien unprivileged enemy belligerent is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter. ‘‘§ 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions ‘‘A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try persons subject to this chapter for any offense made punishable by this chapter, sections 904 and 906 of this title (articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or the law of war, whether such offense was committed before, on, or after September 11, 2001, and may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when specifically authorized under this chapter. A military commission is a competent tribunal to make a finding sufficient for jurisdiction. ‘‘ TPS WHILE ANDREW NAPOLITANO IS WELCOME TO HIS OPINION IT DOES NOT SEEM TO JIVE WITH THE APPLICABLE LAW.— bird11- Before this day ends let's all remember the King of Rock & Roll on his 75th Birthday. Elvis has left the building!!— bird11
- Wow TPS, look at the number of your posts. Did McD's cut your hours again?— camtheman
- "If you didn't care, would you feel it necessary to keep discussing the subject?" Well, of course not...which is why I HAVEN'T continually discussed the subject. You categorized me a certain way...I asked why I should care. This does not constitute me feeling it "necessary to keep discussing the subject?"— legatus
- "However, I'd argue that Obama's "prejudgement" will be insignificant to the sentiment of people in the ME relative to the message sent by trying him in open court where he has full opportunity to mount a defense." I'd disagree. People in the ME will not be making comparisons between a criminal trial in the US with a military tribunal or with criminal (or military) proceedings in their country. Due to Obama's rash statement, during the trial, Middle Easterners will simply be of the opinion that the outcome is preordained. Any subsequent guilty verdict will confirm their suspicion. Only a not guilty verdict will now invalidate thier mistrust.— legatus
- ---} Middle Easterners will simply be of the opinion that the outcome is preordained. {--- So, Middle Easterners are not capable of formulating opinions based on evidence, like you are, eh legatus? They couldn't possibly believe that Obama knew he was guilty because of knowledge of overwhelming evidence proving his guilt. Indeed, your insight into the minds of "Middle Easterners" 0 and how they think differently from you - is astounding. What is also interesting is that you supported an administration that had a foreign policy based on forcing Middle Easterners to adopt a certain kind of government because the United States, as the leader of the free world, said they should do so. And now, you believe that "Middle Easterners" will no longer have faith in the fairness of the American president. Invading a country on the basis of completely false charges of weapons of mass destruction didn't do it. Implementing systemic torture as a war strategy didn't do it. Empowering people who gave Saddam chemical weapons to high level cabinet positions didn't do it. Overthrowing a democratically elected government and helping install a Shah didn't do it. Etc. Nope, Obama saying that KSM was guilty before the trial, even if the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming and presented in open court where he has full opportunity to mount a defense - THAT'S what's going to undermine "Middle Easterners" faith in the American president's truthfulness. Nope. No Obama derangement syndrome there, legatus. None whatsoever. Not a bit.— Talking point sleuth
- ---} Well, of course not...which is why I HAVEN'T continually discussed the subject {--- Good point, legatus. It hasn't been "continuous," you're right. It's only happened three times now in this thread. Because you don't care. Yes, you've proven that. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- ---} TPS WHILE ANDREW NAPOLITANO IS WELCOME TO HIS OPINION {--- Yeah, well, that's what I get for quoting a libertarian nutjob, birdie. However, the point remains that trying the underwear bomber in military court would be immanently challengeable. There are many legal experts who agree with Napalitano about the jurisdictional questions. The Fourth Circuit Appeals Court ruled that Al-Mari, a foreign national, was entitled to be tried in a federal court. There is little doubt that trying him in federal court could happen more quickly. And in cases where the evidence is overwhelming, and there is no need to rely on the more restrictive legal conditions of a military tribunal, there is no good reason to not to use a federal court and there are good reasons to do so.— Talking point sleuth
- Give me a break. Dave Davies, Bunch, Baer, Polman and the other alleged political journalists at the DN/Inq spend 90% of their ink pontificating on national political bs while corruption is epidemic here in the city. Why are local Philly columnists wasting time writing books trying to defeat a dead president's rhetoric from 20 years ago instead of the cess pool that is our present city and state politics? City Council/State legislatures are getting rich off our money now...no matter how you feel about Reagan, he's not waking up.— Herc66
- "So, Middle Easterners are not capable of formulating opinions based on evidence, like you are, eh legatus?" They'd form them exactly as I would TPs. If Ahmadinejad proclaimed the death penalty for the 3 US hikers prior to their trial, I would think that the outcome is preordained. "They couldn't possibly believe that Obama knew he was guilty because of knowledge of overwhelming evidence proving his guilt." So, forget all of that presumption of innocence stuff...the leader of a (from their pov) powerful and imperial country "KNEW HE WAS GUILTY", and he'll get a fair trial. Yeah, sure. "Indeed, your insight into the minds of 'Middle Easterners' and how they think differently from you - is astounding." Nope, they think similarly to me. "What is also interesting is that you supported an administration that had a foreign policy based on forcing Middle Easterners to adopt a certain kind of government because the United States, as the leader of the free world, said they should do so. And now, you believe that 'Middle Easterners' will no longer have faith in the fairness of the American president." You make my point. Obama has clearly reinforced the feelings that the US is unfair. Invading a country...Implementing systemic torture...Empowering people who gave Saddam chemical weapons...Overthrowing a democratically elected government and helping install a Shah didn't do it. Etc. Nope, Obama saying that KSM was guilty before the trial, even if the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming and presented in open court where he has full opportunity to mount a defense - THAT'S what's going to undermine 'Middle Easterners' faith in the American president's truthfulness." BWAHAHAHA...you give all of the reason why they have NO FAITH in the president's truthfulness, and then you mock the strawman that their "faith" is undermined! Once again you make my point...their preconceived idea of the unfairness of the US which was reaffirmed by a stupid remark by Obama.— legatus
- "It's only happened three times now in this thread. Because you don't care. Yes, you've proven that." Par for the course...you are wrong once again. You categorzed me, I asked why I should care...that's the first time that I discussed the subject. You said I find it necessary to keep discussing the subject, I said that I haven't and that I only asked a question once. This is NOT the second instance of me discussing the subject of caring about how you categorize me. It is the first instance of my discussing the fact that I haven't done that which you charge...namely continually discussing the subject of your categorization. So I have replied to two distinct subjects that YOU HAVE RAISED...1) why I should care about your categories and 2) whether or not I continually discuss a particular topic (which is not the same as discussing said topic). I have no clue about what you perceive to be the third instance of me asking why I should care about your categories.— legatus
- I'm not saying the remark wasn't stupid, legatus. Just that your notion of how pivotal it would be to sentiment in the Middle East is clearly informed by a predisposition to view anything Obama might due negatively and to inflate the negative impact way beyond any reasonable degree. Polls clearly show that Obama is viewed as significantly more credible than his predecessor in the ME (as well as the rest of the globe with the possible exception of Israel). He has gone far to reverse the long-standing trend of a reduction in American credibility -- a trend that escalated exponentially during the Bush administration. And you think that will turn around immediately because of one comment about KSM's guilt prior to the trial? LOL! Then, to make your point, you compare the credibility of the American judicial system with that of Iran, and expect anyone to take the comparison seriously? If and American were put on trial in Iran and given a free and open defense - such as will happen with KSM in New York - then it would actually go very far in furthering the credibility of the Iranian judicial system and the Iranian government, no matter what Ahmadinejad might have said or not said prior to the trial. Why do you have so little faith in the impact that the openness and fairness of the American judicial system can have on people, legatus?— Talking point sleuth
- Wow! ----- (1) Btw, it doesn't matter whether you or msl consider me a "winger". ----- (2) Is there a reason that I should care about how you categorize me? ----- (3) Well, of course not...which is why I HAVEN'T continually discussed the subject. You categorized me a certain way...I asked why I should care.----- (4) why I should care about your categories and 2) whether or not I continually discuss a particular topic (which is not the same as discussing said topic). ----- Yet another post on the topic of whether or not you care how I characterize you? LOL! Indeed, you certainly are demonstrating how little you care, legatus. Go Eagles!!— Talking point sleuth
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: