To: "Tyson Slocum" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Karl Grossman" <email@example.com>, "Paul Gunter" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Sara Barczak" <email@example.com>, "PROGRESSIVE REVIEW" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Our precious DNA is being threatened by this constant, unstopping escalation.(followup comments)
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Postmaster@citizen.org
If you're really "shaken by all this", there's an easy way to fix it. Admit Public Citizen has made two big mistakes: 1) Agreeing to attend the Nuclear Renaissance meeting, and 2) Attacking the messenger who asked for an explanation of this decision.
I'm pretty pained myself, over the millions of people who are being killed because of our inability to stop this juggernaut (including close relatives). So quit whining, and get about the business of cancelling PUBLIC CITIZEN'S scheduled appearance at the Nuclear Renewal Seance. (It should make for a very widely distributed press release if you word it right, so you'll get all the publicity you could possibly have expected from attending the meeting in the first place.)
Below are no less than three emails from Tyson Slocum today about me to other people, as he claims to be "moving on" (apparently meaning, he won't talk to me, but he'll happily libel me to others): One is to Ray Shadis in Maine (my answer to Ray Shadis appears at the bottom of this email), and two are to Dustin Johnston in California. Public Citizen's decision to attend this meeting was contrary to the public's attitude, as indicated by comments from four leading writers. I questioned Public Citizen's decision, and that was entirely appropriate. I have posted all previous correspondence on this issue online, so everyone can decide for themselves who attacked whose credibility, how, and when. I cannot, however promise to post any additional correspondence:
and finally, this letter will be available here:
Lastly, notice the times -- at 7:11 this morning, Slocum is "deeply hurt" and "quite shaken". However, by 12:29 pm, all he has to complain about is that the "NRC loves to watch us bicker", having obviously done little or nothing in the interim, except to continue to bicker and complain about me, rather than face the real situation, namely, that Public Citizen is seriously out of step with the movement -- including by their baseless attacks on me, which only Rochelle Becker has supported.
At 07:11 AM 8/8/02 , "Tyson Slocum" <email@example.com> wrote:
Thanks for your comments. I'm quite shaken by all of this, and deeply hurt. Your comments have helped.
Critical Mass Energy & Environment Program
215 Pennsylvania Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20003
>>> firstname.lastname@example.org 08/07/02 06:15PM >>>
Slow down. Condemnation of those who do not hold exactly the same views as
you is not a pretty picture. In my experience, participating in any industry
or NRC event is always problematic for those activists who are invited. On
one hand participation lends credence to the event;on the other we are
presented an opportunity to learn, to confront, to test our assertions, and
sometimes, to bring truth to power. The big September DC hootenanny is not
unique. NRC is at practically every big industry meeting and they are
happening, it seems, every few weeks. Activist are at some.I've been to a
few and found just a little intimidating to confront NRC Commissioners in
the presence of up to several hundred nuclear industry professionals. If
your facts are not right and not readily defensible, you are at risk of
being summarily shot down. It takes a little dedication and nerve but we do
our best (at the minimum)to break the appearance of unanimity. Please. Don't
shoot, we are not the enemy.
To: email@example.com, CAPPcoord@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 12:29:10 -0700
Subject: [CAPPcoord] NRC loves for us to bicker
It sounds as if we are on the same team here. I would hope the West coast
and the East coast organizations against Nuclear Technology would be able to
see eye to eye. Now, I need not hear about personnel attacks anymore within
our common cause. If there are disagreements,then we can discuss them
maturely. Beyond this petty argument lies what we all want. Freedom from
toxic and polluting energy. Did you here about the war between England and
Germany? They are competing to see who can generate 10% of their total
energy needs with wind technology by 2005. Sounds like a war worth being
fought. Hey Russ what do you say? Can we put this behind us and move
forward, maybe even work on common goals with these folks on the Eastern
Seaboard. Hope so!!
>From: "Tyson Slocum" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: <email@example.com>, <CAPPcoord@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: Nuclear energy for you
>Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 09:38:43 -0400
>Dear Mr. Johnston,
>Myself and Public Citizen are 100% opposed to nuclear power, and are
>currently working with the GRACE foundation in New York City on laying out
>a blueprint to have a clean energy (renewables only, no natural gas,
>petroleum or nuclear power) economy in 20 years. The Critical Mass Energy &
>Environment Program at Public Citizen was founded by Ralph Nader for the
>explicit purpose of eliminating all nuclear power in America. Please take a
>look at Public Citizen's web site and see the work we do:
>The reason Russel is upset with me and Public Citizen is that my group
>accepted an invitation to speak at the upcoming "nuclear renaissance"
>conference in Washington, DC, and he is unsatisfied with our justification
>for doing so, and so is now leveling personal attacks against me and my
>Thank you for your email, and please let me know if you have any questions.
>Critical Mass Energy & Environment Program
>215 Pennsylvania Ave, SE
>Washington, DC 20003
> >>> "Dustin Johnston" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 08/07/02 10:08PM >>>
>Are you pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear? What are your feelings toward
>energy sources for tranportation and independence from harmful
>elements(includin oil)? I am curious to know because it seems as if you
>gotten a bit pissed off at Russel. Russel is one of the few people in this
>country that puts all his heart into creating a better world nuclear free.
>Forget all the he said she stuff? What is your stance?
At 12:42 PM 8/8/02 , "Tyson Slocum" <email@example.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: NRC loves for us to bicker
Thanks, Dustin, for your email. I've already moved on, as we're quite busy battling energy corporations. I'm working closely with Lisa Gue on our staff to continue our fight against Yucca Mountain and Private Fuel Storage in Utah; working against the further deregulation of the electric utility industry at the hands of FERC and Congress; continuing our work exposing corruption within the Bush Administration re: their ties to Enron and Halliburton; continuing our pursuit of increasing national reliance on renewable energy and improving energy efficiency; and strengthening our ties to the great grassroots network that makes success possible. I am proud to serve with Wenonah Hauter, Lisa Gue, Dave Ritter and all the other fine men and woman on staff at Public Citizen who come to work every day committed to a safe energy future.
Critical Mass Energy & Environment Program
215 Pennsylvania Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20003
Thanks for the statement (shown below). I did not condemn Public Citizen (although they are earning such condemnation more and more with each volley) -- I only condemned two specific actions.
This whole flap started by my simply calling Public Citizen and asking for a clarification of why they were presenting at the Nuclear Renaissance meeting, in light of three letters I had seen condemning the event. Instead of an explanation, I was challenged to see how the other activists, whom I was quoting from, really feel about Public Citizen as an organization. So I attempted to do so, but so far I haven't gotten any answers from Karl, Paul, or Paula.
Public Citizen did not respond to the clear evidence that this particular meeting can have no respectability, other than what we, in the pro-DNA community, lend it. There are plenty of ways to be shot down by the Nuclear Mafia -- each of us going in piecemeal whenever they beckon us to the chopping block and trying (knowingly or not) to represent the whole movement by ourselves is just one instance of how we allow ourselves to be shot down as a movement.
The criminal mentality in the Nuclear Mafia is far too entrenched to be attempting to reason with them. They will swallow your comments up, accuse you of not understanding technology, and move on to the next activist. If Public Citizen doesn't know that by now, then 30 years of work in the movement obviously has taught them nothing.
The NRC and the whole Nuclear Mafia won't bring out their "experts" for a fair public debate. To attend this meeting, which has been roundly condemned by the activist movement, is divisive. To criticize such divisiveness is appropriate; to be attacked for doing so is not.
Regarding "addressing the facts, not the people", nearly every "fact" is arguable, at some level.. The public will be swayed by our side's credibility, which is as much a matter of the people here, as anything else. The pro-nukers (inside and outside of the pro-DNA movement) attack the credibility of Gofman, Caldicott, Bertelle, et al, on a regular basis.
Public Citizen's decision to go to the Nuclear Religious Revival Meeting is what disunited our front -- not my efforts to understand that decision or to attempt, upon learning that there was no good reason, to dissuade Public Citizen from participating, as everyone else was condemning the meeting in its entirety. Stop shooting the messenger, Ray, and especially, don't think that a vigorous defense of my character, and of our movement's ideals, is a misfired shot. It is not. My questioning of Public Citizen's behavior was an attempt to unify our front -- not to fragment it. But I cannot, and will not, brush such discussions under the rug as many would prefer. I have defended myself against Slocum's personal attacks, and I continue to question the core issue, and feel the public is entitled to an explanation -- including me. That should not be confused with attacking Slocum, even if the defense is at least as vigorous as his own original attacks against me have been from his very first letter, which is posted here:
Public Citizen was wrong, is wrong, and continues to compound their error by allowing Tyson Slocum to continue his personal attacks from their podium.