See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On March 26th, 2009 at 10:16 am, jangar said:

   But Michelle, it’s their good intentions we are to consider!

2. #2
   On March 26th, 2009 at 10:17 am, bear1909 said:

   Green environmentalism is the seedbed of modern day fascism in the United States of America.

   This is not socialism described in the article. It is classic fascism: State control of industry and domestic consumption without taking any responsibility for its real time effects on commerce, industry, and consumers.

   The President must be unseated. Now.

3. #3
   On March 26th, 2009 at 10:19 am, William Teach said:

   Liberalism=delusion

4. #4
   On March 26th, 2009 at 10:25 am, granite said:

   …the solar array that won’t pay for itself until the year 2118….

   …most solar panels have an expected life-span of 20 to 25 years.

   Umm…, can someone help with this math?!?!

   This looks like nothing more than a type of Ponzi scheme.

5. #5
   On March 26th, 2009 at 10:29 am, JDinTX said:

   The Gore global warming followers don’t care how much it costs to fix the climate, even though it really doesn’t need a fix. Obama is just following along because it puts an undue burden on taxpayers and according to him, we all need to be exactly alike – little robot followers of his socialist plan. These solar panels won’t be any more help than Obama’s stimulus plan.

6. #6
   On March 26th, 2009 at 10:29 am, ajmontana said:

   If you put mirrors on Odopeys ears you could light up Mississippi for a year.

7. #7
   On March 26th, 2009 at 10:36 am, tpitman said:

   “We looked at first installing [the solar array] ourselves, and without any of the incentive programs, it was a 110-year payout.” Noel went on to say that the Museum did not purchase the solar array because it did not “make sense financially.”

   Additionally, most solar panels have an expected life-span of 20 to 25 years.

   Sounds like a scheme that Bernie Madoff would’ve cooked up.

8. #8
   On March 26th, 2009 at 10:45 am, desertdweller said:

   B-b-b-but, but it’s for the social good!

9. #9
   On March 26th, 2009 at 10:54 am, jdtruly said:

   There is an ad on tv run by “repoweramerica” which apperars to be an algore group. In it they assert that a square piece of land 96 miles wide covered with the depicted solar arrays could make us free of dirty coal…blah, blah, blah.

   A 96 mile square is almost six million acres – equal to the State of New Hampshire. I want to know who’s backyard that’s going in. Not to mention what environmentalist whacko would agree.

   Green power and radical environmentalism will together dwarf the imagined evils of the so called military-industrial complex and we’ll be living in dark ages conditions if this idiocy is allowed free reign.

10. #10
    On March 26th, 2009 at 10:55 am, Tagwife said:

    On March 26th, 2009 at 10:16 am, jangar said:

    But Michelle, it’s their good intentions we are to consider!

    And we all know what road is paved with good intentions

11. #11
    On March 26th, 2009 at 10:56 am, DesertLover said:

    The usual knee-jerk enviro-nut delusional response … they are so “starved” to find something they can latch their “green” extremism to that they never take a logical look at the state of the technology or its impact …

    Solar power research has been going on for well over 40 years and despite advancements it is still not a financially viable alternative for a homeowner or a business … a homeowner would not recover the cost of the investment in solar power until after they had completely paid off their mortgage … if even then …

    Wind power is even worse … those “wind turbines” they like to show on the MSM news cost $50K and up to install … and one of those will not produce enough electricity to support a single home’s electrical needs …

    All of these technologies are still “under development” … which means the technology is not yet sound enough and productive enough to make financial sense …

    More “Pie-in-the-sky” bull from the Barack Copperfield Administration …

12. #12
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:05 am, John Deaux said:

    But we have to do something now! Or else the planet will get too hot, the ice caps will melt, and the oceans will rise!

13. #13
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:13 am, conservativesRus said:

    On March 26th, 2009 at 10:36 am, tpitman said:
    Sounds like a scheme that Bernie Madoff would’ve cooked up.

    Madoff was only copying the king, queen and court of ponzi schemes – social security.
    I’m still waiting for somebody to explain the difference between what Madoff did and what congress does every day.

14. #14
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:17 am, conservativesRus said:

    On March 26th, 2009 at 10:54 am, jdtruly said:

    There is an ad on tv run by “repoweramerica” which apperars to be an algore group. In it they assert that a square piece of land 96 miles wide covered with the depicted solar arrays could make us free of dirty coal…blah, blah, blah.

    Of course, they won’t talk about all the “toxic” stuff used to produce the supposed green panels. And then disposing of the panels. And the plants that now won’t grow depriving the world of the transformation of CO2 into Oxygen that plants provide.
    I’m sure the list of environmental damage could go on.

15. #15
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:18 am, DesertLover said:

    John Deaux …

    I guess if the oceans rise enough we might rid ourselves of some of the entrenched bastions of liberal extremism that populate certain areas of our coastline …

16. #16
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:22 am, cheapseat said:

    none of these green alternatives work, because if they did, companies like microsoft or g.e. would be doing them without tax benefits. same with hydrogen cars, hybrid electic cars, and fairy dust. the only viable renewable energy source which could work is biodiesel. yes it requires more developement but it actually produces more energy than carbon diesel, is cleaner, is grown not dug, and can be made from pollution artifacts (pond algae and used vegetable oil). but of course the environitwits wont let the european diesel cars into the u.s. to use this carbon alternative nor will our tax collectors allow americans to brew their own fuel without paying the gas taxes. we used to brew moonshine because of taxes, and revenuers went after you, now we brew biodiesel and the same thing happens.

17. #17
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:25 am, John Deaux said:

    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:18 am, DesertLover said:
    John Deaux …

    I guess if the oceans rise enough we might rid ourselves of some of the entrenched bastions of liberal extremism that populate certain areas of our coastline …

    I live in Florida so that might be a slight problem. But I do like how you think!

18. #18
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:26 am, southsideironworks said:

    The proponents of solar and wind technology factor in the initial cost outlay, not to mention the maintenance and repairs over the lifetime of the equipment.

    Tax credits for people who install energy efficient windows, heating and cooling systems is more effective.

    The “green” model only works if we’re paying dollars instead of pennies for kilowatts.

19. #19
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:29 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    If only we had some virgins to sacrifice to the Sun god, this would all work, I just know it!

20. #20
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:30 am, DesertLover said:

    John Deaux …

    Just being the eternal optimist … always a good side to everything … just have to look harder to find it sometimes …
    

21. #21
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:34 am, Flyoverman said:

    The whole green model is like asking a canary to pull a freight train.

    When it is midnight, -20 degrees and no wind in Flyover Country, windmills and solar panels are not going to keep us warm.

    We REQUIRE abundant, inexpensive, ON DEMAND, redundant energy systems that are scailable. The alternative is to become a third world country.

22. #22
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:34 am, willie peter said:

    I’ve a greenie friend who is in the residential solar panel business.

    After a few pops he confided to me that even with all the government subsidies, a homeowner would never recoup their initial investment.

    On top of that, solar panels have a lifetime of only 20 years and the law of diminishing returns starts kicking in after year 10.

    Yeah, that’s something I want. Something that will increase my total energy costs over the next twenty years.

    However, my buddie’s business is doing great as he screws all his granola eating greenie idiot compadres.

23. #23
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:35 am, happyscrapper said:

    WTF is wrong with these people???? We have options that would solve the problem, plus put tens of thousands to work doing PRODUCTIVE jobs. Drill here…drill now! And build those nuclear power plants. I wish these environmental wackjobs would just form a circular firing squad, put Gorebot in the middle and start firing. I seriously want them gone.

24. #24
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:38 am, John Deaux said:

    DL,

    I’m smart enough to get out of the way of the rising tide. Liberals, I’m not so certain.

25. #25
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:40 am, happyscrapper said:

    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:25 am, John Deaux said: I live in Florida so that might be a slight problem. But I do like how you think!

    You would be welcome in Minnesota any time! I know we don’t have your glorious climate, but we have thousands of lakes and it is beautiful up here, away from those rising oceans. You might even take up skiing or snowmobiling. Think about it. That invitation goes to any of you on the coasts who want to leave moonbat country. Now, I’m not saying we don’t have our share of moonbats in MN, but they are mostly in the urban areas. Get a bit outside of the big city and it is heaven.

26. #26
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:42 am, FruNobulux said:

    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:26 am, southsideironworks said:

    The “green” model only works if we’re paying dollars instead of pennies for kilowatts.

    Congratulations, you’ve cracked the code!

27. #27
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:46 am, pueblo1032 said:

    Just like everything tied to ENVIRONMENT or good ol’ GLOBAL WARMING… Without massive subsidies they would never see the light of day… Name one thing that actually not only MAKES MONEY, but SAVES MONEY… Cannot do it… ETHYNOL??? Without subsidies gone… HYBRID/ELECTRIC AUTOS??? You will never get enough miles per gallon to justify the ADDITIONAL cost, not to mention the cost of replacing the BATTERIES… Or how one of our FAVS here in PHOENIX, LIGHT RAIL, or as some OLD TIMERS might remember it, STREETCARS??? Without subsidies it would cost 10-15 dollars per ride… Just a few I could think of, I’m sure there are a lot more…

28. #28
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:50 am, EdDantes said:

    Gordon Brown’s green initiatives just fell off the cliff in the UK because they didn’t make sense financially.

    A quick glimpse at California’s economy shows you what green initiatives and excessive corporate taxation…10.5% unemployment and tents in the city parks.

29. #29
    On March 26th, 2009 at 12:00 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:50 am, EdDantes said:
    Gordon Brown’s green initiatives just fell off the cliff in the UK because they didn’t make sense financially.

    A quick glimpse at California’s economy shows you what green initiatives and excessive corporate taxation…10.5% unemployment and tents in the city parks.

    This would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. How can anyone with a brain look at what is happening in the UK and California and NOT SEE WHAT IS CAUSING IT?? I swear, the liberals are brain dead. They know what is going on. They know how expensive their plans are. The only answer is that they are doing it on purpose to destroy our country because they hate it and think it needs to be re-done. The best hope for the world is being chewed up and spit out by those treasonous a$$holes. Who can stop them? The revolution is very very near.

30. #30
    On March 26th, 2009 at 12:00 pm, RTater said:

    Surprisingly, the president of a Colorado Intermountain Rural Electric Association, an electricity co-op, does not buy into the BS:

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/Apr/10/rough-road-for-co-op-exec/

    I couldn’t find his actual writing. The above link is a report on his op-ed/memo. Here’s a quote from it (emphasis mine):

    For the general manager of Intermountain Rural Electric Association, the state’s largest rural electric co-operative serving 134,000 customers, coal tops the list. His views fly in the face of a state and national movement to go more green, inching Lewandowski to the sidelines.

    “The job of a electric utility is to provide reliable electricity at a low cost, not social service,” Lewandowski said.

    “From a practical point, coal is the solution at present. Solar is far too expensive, and wind is too intermittent,” he adds. “When it comes to renewable energy, I don’t do something to feel good.”

31. #31
    On March 26th, 2009 at 12:20 pm, denver republican said:

    My state has gone to hell (and can keep going, as far as I care anymore). Time to find a more reasonable place to live . . . assuming there is such a place that doesn’t end with “Dakota”. (Nothing against the Dakotas, but today’s blizzard here in Denver reminds me that I need to live someplace warmer.)

32. #32
    On March 26th, 2009 at 12:20 pm, rightisright said:

    I need an answer to a question related to my living location…if i mount a wind turbine on my truck(fart, ranger) and solar panels with storage batteries, will I need to live on the top of hill in order to get my truck started on a cloudy day? The greens do have that problem solved I would assume. Oh, and I will have a fairly small flower box in the bed of the truck to help remove my carbon footprint if I have one. That brings up another question, on cloudy day the flower box isn’t regenerating oxygen, do I still get carbon footprint credits?

33. #33
    On March 26th, 2009 at 12:32 pm, scituate_tgr said:

    I’d be interested to know how many members of the House and Senate have stock or investments in supporting enterprises connected to the companies who are now set to receive a huge windfall from the taxpayer.

    Maybe going green has a different meaning to those in high places.

    Hold on, there’s a knock at my door.

34. #34
    On March 26th, 2009 at 12:37 pm, tonyr951 said:

    “We looked at first installing [the solar array] ourselves, and without any of the incentive programs, it was a 110-year payout.”

    The panels have a lifespan of 20-25 years. Wonder if they factored in the multiple replacements for the ‘payout’.

    It’s about $5 a watt to get solar.

    Compare that to $.10 per Kilowatt from the grid.

    That’s why it takes forever to get a ROI with solar.

35. #35
    On March 26th, 2009 at 12:38 pm, cheapseat said:

    too many funny comments with such a tragic consequence. the environitwits say man made global warming, we need to reduce carbon use. asked can we use nuc-u-lar, they say no. asked can we use solar they say yes but only in the rain belts like seattle, or snow belts, like denver – chicago, and of course not in that epicenter of sunshine the mohave desert, too ecologically sensitive don’t you know. it might impinge on the rattlesnake and scorpion habitat. can we use wind? well not off the coasts where you have constant wind, but there in the midwest where we have tornados in spring, no wind in summer, and t boone pickens backers year round you can set them up. that’s fly over country, and you cant see them from 35k feet. and hell no, don’t even bring up drilling for oil in the u.s. as it is against the law. if not we’ll pass one by tomorrow.

36. #36
    On March 26th, 2009 at 1:03 pm, DesertLover said:

    scituate_tgr

    There are several but the only one you really need to know about is Vampirella Pelosi who has millions invested in T. Boone Pickens wind programs …

37. #37
    On March 26th, 2009 at 1:26 pm, WarTip said:

    See how wrong I can be? I thought maybe they were supplied by Harry Reid or his son! They also own some interesting assets in “Green” technology in Southern Nevada. I wonder how much government “assistance” they get from that?

38. #38
    On March 26th, 2009 at 1:27 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Umm…, can someone help with this math?!?!

    lgm?

39. #39
    On March 26th, 2009 at 1:31 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Here’s a meandering article about Freeman Dyson, top flight scientist and somewhere in here it mentions his love of coal. That’s right, coal. Why? For one thing it’s cheap and has lifted maybe a billion or so people from poverty into the middle class in China. (He’s also a sceptic about global warming, calling it local warming since some cold places are getting warmer, but hot places aren’t getting hotter – but I digress…)

40. #40
    On March 26th, 2009 at 1:32 pm, polocruz said:

    If anyone is interested in the latest “green” scam, follow the money in the LEED (Leadership in Energy Engineering Design) certification program!

41. #41
    On March 26th, 2009 at 1:50 pm, sgcwi said:

    They make the turbines for the wind generators in Pensacola at the old GE plant. They are constantly shipping them out. I have a sailboat and the wind gen on it works fine and the solar panels work ok. But for house’s,, I don’t know about that. On a boat you still have to make descesions about what to run and not run. Kinda like green acre’s and the numbering system that they had for their generator. Won’t that be special when we all have power demand charts in our house’s and decide what is really required. Solution.. Drill baby drill,,, construct new nuke palnts. And I hear that they are starting to dismantle the hydro-electric damns also. Now that makes sense,cause the greenies don’t like them. Let them be the first to lose power and then they can just love themselfs for saving the earth. Meanwhile I got the BBQ with rotesorie (however ya spell it) NASCAR going and beer at perfect 36 degrees. House a cool comfy 71 and my 75 gallon reef tank pulling the watts.
    And for cap and trade people, remember that giggles the clown started the chicago carbon exchange a few years ago and gee beav, they are the prime comapany that will be overseeing his carbon offsets. Don’t think there is alittle (not much) conflict there, ehhh?

42. #42
    On March 26th, 2009 at 1:57 pm, wighttrasch said:

    the Museum did not purchase the solar array because it did not “make sense financially.”

    Well I’m glad to know we have a government there for us to make those nonsensical decisions!

43. #43
    On March 26th, 2009 at 2:14 pm, Common Sense said:

    I would love to be energy independent and not depend on Xcel. But when my sister and I ran the numbers for solar and wind, there was no way it made sense financially, even with the credits. Most of the standard calculations only provide about 25% of your electricity needs. And wind requires at least an acre of land.

    We have the instructions for a do-it-yourself solar hot water heater, and even that is a $2000 project.

    The Museum has no business denying access to their financial info. They are a taxpayer supported institution.

44. #44
    On March 26th, 2009 at 2:18 pm, John Deaux said:

    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:40 am, happyscrapper said:

    You would be welcome in Minnesota any time!

    Your offer is sincerely appreciated, especially since you need all the conservatives you can get.

45. #45
    On March 26th, 2009 at 3:25 pm, mattm said:

    So it appears that the solar panels will pay for them selves in 2118 but only last 20-25 yrs. Since the current panes will be long gone this will NEVER pay for it self.

46. #46
    On March 26th, 2009 at 4:20 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:40 am, happyscrapper said:
    You would be welcome in Minnesota any time!

    On March 26th, 2009 at 2:18 pm, John Deaux said:Your offer is sincerely appreciated, especially since you need all the conservatives you can get.

    Yes, I did have an ulterior motive for the invitation. But I don’t invite just anyone to share this beautiful state! You are one of the “chosen ones”!

47. #47
    On March 26th, 2009 at 4:21 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    It should not come as a surprise that solar and wind power are not economically viable options at this time. The only way it APPEARS to make financial sense is if it’s subsidized by taxpayers. You know, those “rebates” that are mentioned in the article.

    So, at a time of financial upheaval, Obama wants to drive the stake further into the heart of the economy by forcing upon us all… “Alternative Energy”… in addition to his cap and trade carbon taxes.

    I don’t think he’s naive about this, I think he’s hell bent on his agenda and doesn’t particularly care what the impact is on our citizens and the economy.

    Seems to me like Obama actually -wants- to destroy the country. Perhaps so he can “re-make” in a way inline with his vision.

    I see no good in anything the man says or does. None.

48. #48
    On March 26th, 2009 at 5:22 pm, corkie said:

    On March 26th, 2009 at 1:50 pm, sgcwi said:

    Solution.. Drill baby drill,,, construct new nuke palnts.

    YES!

49. #49
    On March 26th, 2009 at 5:40 pm, usa_usa said:

    Solar power is another fairy tale from libtards (like global warming, gay marriage, evolution ..)

    

50. #50
    On March 26th, 2009 at 5:44 pm, usa_usa said:

    Seems to me like Obama actually -wants- to destroy the country. Perhaps so he can “re-make” in a way inline with his vision.

    He just wants to destroy . No remaking.

51. #51
    On March 26th, 2009 at 7:10 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    How efficient are the solar panels that were inspected by President Obama? The Denver Museum of Science isn’t telling.

    They also fail to tell you that although they promote their membership fees as tax-deductible, they dont tell you that the membership level you are most likely to choose, is the actual cut-off for not being deductible….

    (meaning that if you spend $100, you actually have to spend $101 to get a $1 write-off)

    But you are helping to foot the bill for the solar array that won’t pay for itself until the year 2118…

    Ummmm has no one been paying attention to green energy and conservation? Thats why all this stuff is subsidized. Just look at those new toxic energy efficient light bulbs.

    Additionally, most solar panels have an expected life-span of 20 to 25 years.

    And how much does it cost to get up there and clean those solar panels? Im sure the maintenance fees are going to go WAY UP over the next 20 years. Do we think they are still going to be “efficient” after the first dust storm?

52. #52
    On March 26th, 2009 at 7:21 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    Then realize that you are paying this “adjustment” to buy solar panels which the museum has admitted that without any government subsidization wouldn’t pay for themselves until the year 2118.”

    So maybe we should all be FOR Global Warming – then we can have a more agressive ROI.

    Hmmm maybe we can bundle these alternative energy credits into some kind of financial instrument and co-collateralize them with mortgage based securities.

    I see synergy and win-win written all over that proposal. Take a conservative with liberal tendencies and overlay capitalistic philosophy on a social/commune policy and what do you get…… OMG I’ve become China!!!

53. #53
    On March 26th, 2009 at 8:40 pm, bjc said:

    *If we truly want to go green, we must transition from oil, coal, and natural gas to nuclear; All else is folly.

54. #54
    On March 27th, 2009 at 8:53 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    RabbidSquirrel said:

    Hmmm maybe we can bundle these alternative energy credits into some kind of financial instrument and co-collateralize them with mortgage based securities.

    And don’t forget my favorite part… collect our bonuses for our innovative financing!

    We can’t so solar anyway because Dianne Feinstein wants to save the Mojave turtles.
    

    In a move that could pit environmentalists and alternative energy industries against each other, the senator wants hundreds of thousands of acres in California designated as a national monument.

    Recall that Kennedy blocked wind farms odd Cape Cod to save the red herrings.

55. #55
    On March 27th, 2009 at 9:04 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    WHEN will these environazis ADMIT THE TRUTH about solar power? They CANNOT be installed under trees or under crops anymore then they can be put over them.

    Calling the use of them ‘green’ is truly a DOUBLE hypocrisy!

    1. Beyond roof tops and lifeless desert areas, just about anywhere else you put them will impede plant life.

    2. The reason environazis demand that we need to use them is to reduce CO2 – THE VERY THING PLANTS WANT MORE OF! (Almost ALL commercial greenhouses artificially increase CO2 to over double the concentration of the outside air.)

56. #56
    On March 28th, 2009 at 12:30 pm, rocketman said:

    ***
    There are a lot of super posts here on the SOLAR POWER AND WIND POWER SCAMS. A lot of people are waking up to the engineering and financial realities of these “free power” sources.
    ***
    Good engineering and financial decisions stand on their own and do not require taxpayer subsidies to operate.
    ***
    Remember–WHEN SOMEONE OFFERS YOU SOMETHING FOR FREE TAKE AS LITTLE OF IT AS YOU CAN AFFORD! My analysis always sets the BULLS**T FLAG when I run the numbers.
    ***
    Why waste time and money on alternate energy sources? Just have the Messiah (PBUH) wave his magic wand and make the electrons move on their own in the wiring. It should not be much harder than reversing global warming and rising sea levels–President O’Bummer already promised this.
    ***
    John Bibb
    ***

57. #57
    On March 28th, 2009 at 2:01 pm, political junkie said:

    There are many “green” efforts that do pay for themselves very quickly, some in as little as a few months. As conservatives we should be all over efficiency measures. However, at this point photo-voltaic arrays make no sense what-so-ever unless government subsidies are factored in. Technological breakthroughs could change that however and then a distributed power generation source that requires little input after initial installation could be a great boon to national energy security.

58. #58
    On March 29th, 2009 at 11:37 am, jamesgreenidge said:

    Has anyone seen a “wind farm”? I don’t know who outside MSM and agenda-touting teachers thinks such a noisy blight across the land is “romantic” much less great for neighboring property values. I mean you can drive past a (non-cooling tower) nuclear plant in twenty seconds and not even know it was there, but you could drive for minutes through a landscape infested by these towering whirlygigs. Imagine hiking up a mountain then looking out across square miles of these things. Ditto these sprawling “solar farms”. And I thought Greens wanted countrysides and deserts untouched by “pristine” beauty.

    James Greenidge
    Queens, NY

59. #59
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:54 am, torabora said:

    Sen. Fiendsteen doesn’t want solar in the desert.

    LGM where are you?

60. #60
    On October 1st, 2011 at 7:38 am, BK said:

    Another thing about the 110 year figure for payback: Those savings are UNDISCOUNTED.

    Companies look at DISCOUNTED savings or cash flows before making a decision to invest. If they’re borrowing money at 6% and they expect to be earning 4$ on a project, game over, the project is not done.

    Using discounted savings, this could turn into a 300-400 year payback.

    We got a better chance of investing in Enron bonds bonds and obtaining a return.