Adam Shriver: Often Wrong but Never in Doubt

Shriver whines and bemoans the fact that we just won't lay down and let him lie lie lie.

Shriver, the self-appointed media political officer/commissar of south St. Louis, says we were "busted" by Crooks and Liars and Media Matters, two organizations heavy on spin and light on substance.

Then the tired meme of "selective editing" came back up, even though we released the transcript and, surprise surprise, it doesn't help Judy, Don or Adam. Here's the old article for reference:

http://bigjournalism.com/insurgentvisuals/2011/05/05/u-of-missouri-epic-fail-no-amount-of-context-can-defend-judy-ancel/

But here's Shriver's pathetic point: distract and deflect from what Judy Ancel and Don Giljum said:

1. "Violence is a [political] tactic, to be used when appropriate." - Judy

2. "When you have a crisis, you have an opportunity to introduce a shock—which is a massive change. Generally, if you’re following the neo-liberal playbook, it’s one that shifts power dramatically." - Judy

3. I instigated a riot "where several police cars were burned." - Don

In what context are these comments ok?

EVEN JUDY DOESN'T LIE AS MUCH AS SHRIVER, she tries to say that her quotes were "pedagogical explanations" meaning that she was just challenging the students with ironic, contrary viewpoints. But she was approvingly citing to a documentary where violence had been used to get political results.

Adam Shriver is a committed leftist, he's made himself a public figure in the organizing for left-wing causes around St. Louis, and sees this as his personal jihad against the right. To that end, he's willing to lie, obfuscate and twist words, meaning and create distractions to avoid the obvious: these students were being indoctrinated into radical union organizing which made violence casual and lighthearted in order to radicalize them to do anything for the cause.

Judy and Don were never vindicated, but the left-wing noise machine was able to overwhelm the Breitbart team so that the story died the death of a thousand distractions. It's impressive how well they circled the wagons, but it's disgusting the extent to which they'll lie in order to advance their agenda.

The story stands for itself, the video speaks for itself, and the words were never out of context nor were they selectively edited.

Adam Shriver is a damn shrill. We hope Judy and Don at least bought him a beer for all his propagandizing.

Breitbart: The Full 30 hours is worse

No context can defend Judy Ancel

The ILS Labor Advisory Board

THE ILS LABOR ADVISORY BOARD

• Diane Arends - USWA 13
• Byron Austin, Chairman - GCIU 235
• Len Beauchamp - Boilermakers International
• Gene Bralley - Federal Mediation & Conciliation
• Joe Capra - IAM Local 778
• Sherwin Carroll - SEIU Local 96
• Andrea Moran Chapman - APWU Greater Metro Area Local
• Greg Chastain - Sheet Metal Workers Local 2
• Gordon Clark - Transport Workers Local 530
• Mike Damico - IBEW 124
• Beverly Garrett - AFGE
• Robert Gillis - AFSCME Local 500
• Jim Hadel - Tri-County Labor Council of Eastern Kansas
• Pricilla Jackson Evans - Longview - Social Science Division
• Dan Johnson - Teamsters Local 41
• Bernard Johnson - Mail Handlers Local 297
• Herb Johnson - Missouri AFL-CIO
• Garry Kemp- Greater Kansas City Building & ConstructionTrades Council
• Earl Lancaster - TCU Allied Services Division
• John Locke - IAFF Local 42
• Jenee Lowe - Pipefitters Local 533
• Jan Mammen - OPEIU Local 320
• Steve McLuckie - Missouri NEA
• Hugh McVey - MO AFL-CIO
• Jason Mendenhall - Laborers 663
• Cynthia Millentree - UAW Local 249
• Judy Morgan - Kansas City MO Federation of Teachers 691
• Cindi Nance - UFCW 576
• Dave Peterson and Donna Birks - UAW Local 31
• Prof. James Sturgeon - UMKC Economics Department
• AJ Villegas - CWA District 6
• Gene Wagner - UMKC - Economics Department
• Bridgette Williams - Greater KC AFL-CIO
• Jane Zeitner- Longview PACE

Definitively why the Judy Ancel quote is entirely in context

Let's recap: videos released show Judy Ancel endorsing violence. Predictably, the left says they are "out of context." Is that true?

Here's the full context of her remarks.

STUDENT 1: I have a question for the class militants. Do you think that the contract would have been signed had the protests continued? In the smashing windows, breaking storefronts, looting, thing.

STUDENT 2: I think there was an element of it that really shocked people. I’m sure it brought a lot of people’s attention to it. I don’t think it’s the answer. I don’t think it’s like, the, a solution to the problem. But, I’m not willing to put any tactics off the table and I think it played a part.

STUDENT 3: I think it came to the people saying we’re not gonna shop, we’re gonna stick together and we’re not buy your goods. It was like a deal like with Gandhi where he started with a lot of that, but I think they would have stayed true to their goal of not buying economic power.

STUDENT 4: When they’re willing to give up violence, then I will too.

ANCEL: The one guy in the film, one of the guys who had been one of the young, um, SNCC types, said…What?

STUDENT: The Invaders [name of the militant group in the film]

[ANCEL:] — he represented the kind of thinking that went into this student on the coordinating committee and then later probably — well, coinciding with the Black Panthers. You know, he said violence is a tactic and it’s to be used when it’s appropriate, when it’s an appropriate tactic. Whether — they never come back to him to ask him what he thought of the window-smashing in that march or whether or not that was done by them or others or provocateurs. We don’t know that.

STUDENT 4: One more thing is that they’re trying to be a part of the larger society, we don’t, I don’t, necessarily want to be a part of of capitalist society. I want to take over the state with revolutionary movement which doesn’t exist.

STUDENT 2: For King too, he opened the doors and had a conversation with these guys [people using violence as a political tactic]. He didn’t denounce them, he didn’t lock them out.

STUDENT: I just think it’s interesting now, It’s mainstream to revere these figures like Martin Luther King and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and we forget how radical they were in their time and even today. Martin Luther King was all about social justice and like a radical vision for America that people today think they were only about civil rights and died with his work completed. FDR, I didn’t realize until I read a book about him, he wanted a second bill of rights that said everyone had a right to a job with a living wage, social security, health care, housing, that those things were rights. Today that would be, not even, he would be laughed out of Washington.

Also, per a previous post, here are the seven reasons why it was entirely in context considering the other things being said at the same time:

1. Violence was effectively used in the past.

2. The specific comment is made that "no tactics are off the table."

3. Another student says "when they're willing to give up violence, I will too" after a student says that economic tactics are the right way to go.

4. Ancel follows that comment about endorsing violence up by further approvingly citing to a SNCC leader who said that violence is a tactic, to be used when appropriate.

5. The comment is then made, following her direction, that the student "doesn't want to live in this society."

6. The same student then says, I want to take over the state with revolutionary movement which doesn’t exist.

7. Another student then points out to how FDR and MLK were just as radical as these people using violence.

This was always in context. This was always the intent, tone, diction and communicative desire of Judy Ancel: to teach impressionable student that violence was a tactic, to be used when appropriate.

Judy Ancel was always cited in context. Her remarks were never taken out of context. The school is covering for her because they've gone "all-in" defending her now and don't want to lose face. Media outlets are repeating the lies from Media Matters and other minor left-wing blogs. Only a few on the right are showing this for what it is: Judy Ancel teaching violence as an appropriate political tactic to be used when appropriate for labor organizing.

Answer from the left? Silence.

Actual Communists and their glaring errors

This Communist (talbano@peoplesworld.org) tries to write a coherent story about the Judy Ancel violence videos, and fails.

[Insert Janeane Garafalo joke here] What's the over-under on how many cats this woman owns? Your IV team says greater than 30, anyone willing to say less? Also, how many accents do you think she manages to squeeze into Teresa? At least two...

Let's just start with the easy stuff:

1. Youtube has not taken down the videos.

2. There has been no one who said the intended context of Judy Ancel's remarks were "the exact opposite." At best, detractors have claimed that it was a "pedagogical explanation" to use her words. That they were the opposite is incorrect.

3. The only source for "debunking" the videos has been Media Matters. We have responded to their supposed "debunking" as well. However, to claim that "multiple sources" have done so is inaccurate.

4. UMKC did not "immediately" view the tapes and defend Ms. Ancel. They claim they are still investigating. As there are 30+ hours, that seems appropriate. 

Is she incapable of writing a decent story because:
1. She works in journalism (most likely)
2. She has 32 cats and they distracted her (possible)
3. She's a union member and, thus, lazy (possible but unlikely the sole cause)
4. She's a Communist and believes that only violent revolution will bring about utopia (true but inapplicable here)
5.She's really a soft Democrat and views this as a partisan issue (also true, but probably inapplicable here)

Perhaps you have a different opinion, let us know in the comments or by email:
blog@insurgentvisuals.com

DailyKos: Complaining about context without providing any

The DailyKos makes several disingenuous arguments in this article, which we've already well addressed here.

This one stands out though:

Breitbart is a master of taking quotes out of context, deletion of what doesn't serve his purpose, and remixing to achieve totally different meaning. For example he has me saying:

o Breitbart's version: "Violence is a tactic and it's to be used when it's the appropriate tactic."

o The real version: After students had watched a film on the 1968 Memphis Sanitation Workers' Strike and the assassination of Martin Luther King, they were discussing nonviolence. I said, "One guy in the film. . . said 'violence is a tactic, and it's to be used when it’s the appropriate tactic.'. . . " The class proceeded to discuss and debate this.

This, of course, isn't the context at all.

The context of the specific question, not provided by Kos, is that:

1. Violence was effectively used in the past.

2. The specific comment is made that "no tactics are off the table."
3. Another student says "when they're willing to give up violence, I will too" after a student says that economic tactics are the right way to go.

4. Ancel follows that comment about endorsing violence up by further approvingly citing to a SNCC leader who said that violence is a tactic, to be used when appropriate.

5. The comment is then made, following her direction, that the student "doesn't want to live in this society."
6. The same student then says, I want to take over the state with revolutionary movement which doesn’t exist.

7. Another student then points out to how FDR and MLK were just as radical as these people using violence.

This was always in context. This was always the intent, tone, diction and communicative desire of Judy Ancel: to teach impressionable student that violence was a tactic, to be used when appropriate.

UMKC Statement on the Violence Videos

The University of Missouri-Kansas City continues to review approximately 18 hours of unedited video from the Labor, Politics and Society class. From the review completed to date, it is clear that edited videos posted on the Internet depict statements from the instructors in an inaccurate and distorted manner by taking their statements out of context and reordering the sequence in which those statements were actually made so as to change their meaning.  Such selective editing is disturbing and the release of students’ images without their permission is a violation of their privacy rights.
We want to underscore our commitment to the importance of academic freedom, freedom of speech and the free-flowing discussion of challenging topics in our courses. We also recognize the serious responsibilities this places on us to ensure a balanced perspective is offered to our students within our curriculum.
In this particular case, we also affirm our belief that studying labor unions, their history, and their role in society is an important subject given the role they have played and continue to play in the United States and the world.  As a result, we continue to review the appropriate place for such an offering within our curriculum.
During the course of our review the past couple days, UMSL has accepted the resignation of its lecturer.


Statement from Gail Hackett, Provost
University of Missouri-Kansas City