Chapel* at Gordon-Conwell

Click on image for larger size

I just got back from a 20-mile bike ride in the humid North Shore air. My route took me past Gordon-Conwell Seminary in Wenham, which I had never seen, even though I’ve driven by it many times. So I explored the grounds and got this shot with my BlackBerry of the chapel (which is at the summit of a rather brutal hill). It would have made for a better picture if the cars weren’t there.

*Correction: A friend who attended Gordon-Conwell tells me that the chapel is actually behind this building.

3 thoughts on “Chapel* at Gordon-Conwell

  1. Neil Sagan

    Truth sleuth Dan Kennedy may need to print a retraction, and as good form would suggest, an apology to Van Jones for Dan’s bad judgment trusting Glenn Beck’s “journalism” on the matter of Van Jones and 911Truth.org.

    Van Jones speaks for himself in a NYT op-ed Sunday

    Last year I, too, resigned from an administration job, after I uttered some ill-chosen words about the Republican Party and was accused — falsely — of signing my name to a petition being passed around by 9/11 conspiracy theorists…

    … Ms. Sherrod’s comments, in which she, a black woman, appeared to admit to racial discrimination against a white couple, were taken far out of context, while I truly did use a vulgarity.

    … In my case, the media rushed to judgment so quickly that I was never able to make clear that the group put my name on its Web site without my permission. The group finally admitted that it never had my signature, but by then it was too late.

    It’s not easy being a journalist these days. One must consistently deliver to guard against being called liberal and biased (you see conservative and biased is not a serious transgression while liberal and bias apparently is.) Just keep it in mind when you read Dan’s posts.

    Dan’s in good company though, the NAACP made the same mistake recently in throwing Shirley Sherrod under the bus. As you may recall, Dan’s conclusion about Van Jones “Jones had to go, and he did.” That’s Mr. Van Jones to you Mr Kennedy.

    As Dan himself exhorts “Fellow liberals, let’s be honest with ourselves.” Your turn Dan.

    The toxicity of truth

    … For weeks, the race-baiting right-winger Glenn Beck and his ilk had been gunning for Van Jones, a highly respected White House adviser on green jobs whose former organization, Colour of Change, is a leading force behind an advertiser boycott of Beck’s programme on the Fox News channel.

    Beck and company not only won, they won cleanly: they discovered that, in 2004, Jones had signed a petition calling for a probe into whether the Bush administration might have had something to do with the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001.

    I especially like Dan’s assessment of how Glenn Beck won… “cleanly.” Would you like to reassess, Mr. Kennedy?

    Here’s a project for your masters students. Who has more journalistic integrity Glenn Beck or Andrew Breitbart? The great thing about studying the media is that its all there for our review.

  2. Neil Sagan

    … even the NYDailyNews.com article, the one Dan links to in his Guardian article, doesn’t assert Mr. Van Jones signed the petition, instead it poses the questions:

    Questions: Did Jones, in fact, sign that statement? If so, what is he doing in the company of the President of the United States?

  3. Neil Sagan

    Finally! Finally! The New York Times delivers a stand-alone piece on how the Sherrod mess may have damaged the credibility of Breitbart and right wing media.

    I’m not sure why The Times says it’s an “open question” whether the right wing media’s credibility gets damaged by this kind of thing. But I’m glad the piece focused on the right, rather than on “both sides.” And it remains astounding how few media figures will come out and state the obvious about the Sherrod affair’s real significance.

    Related: Kossack Vyan asks Anderson Cooper to take another look at his, “left/right equivalence” frame of the Breitbart/Fox/Sherrod Affair.

Comments are closed.