I Must Be Popular--I'm Cited in a Bad Article

A craptastic article on some news site called AlterNet, which "amplifies other independent media sources." Or practices lazy journalism without pondering the full weight and implications of a topic based on the research's real subject (research that I bet is supposed to develop and bolster the article's topic). As in this first paragraph from the article "Why T. Boone Pickens' 'Clean Energy' Plan Is a Ponzi Scheme":

"Those are the shells being moved around in this particular game. But shuffling responsibilities and resources will do nothing to forestall our dystopian environmental future, unless those resources burn clean. And what the Pickens Plan does not mention is that the oil tycoon has been deeply invested in natural gas for decades. If the entire American fleet were to switch over to natural gas, the air would possibly (but not probably) be around 30 percent cleaner in a decade, but Pickens would be richer in much higher percentages. And while the air would only stay cleaner for a short while, Pickens would stay loaded beyond the grave."

That "deeply invested" link goes to my blog post on natural gas (AND wind power) as a viable alternative to BEGIN lessening our dependence on foreign oil and SWITCHING to BETTER forms of energy: oh, like wind, solar, geothermal, you know, stuff mentioned in the original article. I like how the article I posted on my site on natural gas, and my opinion of it, have been completely misconstrued and / or not even used for this "journalist's" purposes--which is to completely discredit Pickens. Yes, he is a for-profit guy, but he's a for-profit guy who has actually proposed change that the government is too stuck up their asses to even remotely consider, let alone having some backbone and putting their neck out on the line for a new age that could very well be akin to the goodly discovery and use of fire by cave people. Big change in this country has largely come from the private sector, and here we have it. And the dude's willing to spend a crapload of money on it that we can't get elsewhere. Huzzah.

Let's face it, at this point capitalism might be our best option, and if an independently wealthy Texan--who made billions off of oil and the like--decides to do something that is, in the grand scheme of things, good and right and responsible, and dare I say slightly philanthropic and leads to the betterment of the planet, why should we be naysayers. Nay, I say to the naysayers. NAY NAY NAY.

And Nay to this website and author for irresponsibly using my blog, when, at the very least, they should have used a link to the original article, and not to me, who is a veritable hornet nest at the moment and who--with my ivory-towerish-like graduate education of eight years and seven years of teaching composition and literature--can dismantle any piece of writing in my sleep with the voracity of a starved monarch larva being fed milkweed leaves for the first time all day (I am so sorry Mr. / Ms. Monarch larva that I forgot to aquire said leaves for you this morning).

Oh I won't even link to this crap. You can google it for yourself if you want. I have to get back to work--which itself does a pretty good job of humbling me ala my ability as a writer, teacher, and person worth consuming precious food and oxygen.