LawTalkers - Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security designated the Bay Area today as one of the six urban areas in the country most at risk for terrorist attacks, as it doled out nearly $750 million in anti-terror grants. . . .

The Department of Homeland Security had been criticized in the past by officials from large cities who argued that the government was not living up to promises that it would focus heavily on the risks cities face.

Today, the agency gave 55 percent of the grants to six urban areas --

the Bay Area, Los Angeles/Long Beach, Washington, D.C., Chicago, New York/New Jersey and Houston.

SF Gate

Houston? If you need a sixth city, I would think Detroit would be more at risk.

For obvious risks relating to big cities, I'd suggest Miami.

And, of course, Boston, where the terrorists boarded, and where the funding was heavily cut this year.

ltl/fb

07-18-2007 05:39 PM

Houston? We have a problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
For obvious risks relating to big cities, I'd suggest Miami.

And, of course, Boston, where the terrorists boarded, and where the funding was heavily cut this year.

Whatever. They aren't going to try the same thing again, and there's not much there other than historical crap that we could recreate facsimiles of.

notcasesensitive

07-18-2007 05:39 PM

Houston? We have a problem.

Quote:

Dude! I should totally be doling out this money. Go ahead, someone else back me up here. Spanky?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

07-18-2007 05:41 PM

Houston? We have a problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Demand exceeds supply in terms of crude oil, or in terms of refined fuel?

Of course, you may be an oil company shill.

Both. Well, demand equals supply because it always does. But the consumption of crude oil has gone up faster than production, which is why world oil prices are near their all=time high (which was set recently).

And gasoline demand further exacerbates this. U.S. consumption exceeds U.S. production, so gas is imported, which makes it more expensive. Production can't catch up with consumption because of limits on refinery expansion.

I'm not a shill, just trying to stop misinformation.

Shape Shifter

07-18-2007 05:41 PM

Houston? We have a problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Woo hoo! What do fringey and I win?

Pork.

ltl/fb

07-18-2007 05:42 PM

Houston? We have a problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Both. Well, demand equals supply because it always does. But the consumption of crude oil has gone up faster than production, which is why world oil prices are near their all=time high (which was set recently).

And gasoline demand further exacerbates this. U.S. consumption exceeds U.S. production, so gas is imported, which makes it more expensive. Production can't catch up with consumption because of limits on refinery expansion.

I'm not a shill, just trying to stop misinformation.

OK. I honestly didn't know, which is why I said I think I heard. And the oil refinery article noted that none have been built for like 30 years in the US (though some have been expanded).

ltl/fb

07-18-2007 05:43 PM

Houston? We have a problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Pork.

I think that's what they revised for the new one.

I am concerned about the animals at the zoo, though.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

07-18-2007 05:44 PM

Houston? We have a problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What is at risk in Detroit? Is there even much of anything there anymore?

I thought this was the argument about Houston - we could lose either city and not really notice.

I'm actually as surprised by Chicago - while I'd miss the city if it weren't there, it strikes me that most international traffic would stop somewhere else first. And if someone has decided that the Sears Tower ought to be a primary target, they probably aren't that smart anyways.

Tyrone Slothrop

07-18-2007 05:48 PM

Houston? We have a problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I thought this was the argument about Houston - we could lose either city and not really notice.

I'm actually as surprised by Chicago - while I'd miss the city if it weren't there, it strikes me that most international traffic would stop somewhere else first. And if someone has decided that the Sears Tower ought to be a primary target, they probably aren't that smart anyways.

This conversation is bringing me around to the view that big piles of money should go to NY/NJ and DC/MD/VA, and that everyone else should suck it.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

07-18-2007 05:50 PM

Houston? We have a problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Dude! I should totally be doling out this money. Go ahead, someone else back me up here. Spanky?

You have my proxy.

Use your power for good.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

07-18-2007 05:51 PM

Houston? We have a problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This conversation is bringing me around to the view that big piles of money should go to NY/NJ and DC/MD/VA, and that everyone else should suck it.

Who'd miss DC or NJ?

notcasesensitive

07-18-2007 05:51 PM

Houston? We have a problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This conversation is bringing me around to the view that big piles of money should go to NY/NJ and DC/MD/VA, and that everyone else should suck it.

Well, enjoy your lack of movies, tv and music then. And gossip about Lindsey Lohan. Wait. Can I take that last part back?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

07-18-2007 05:54 PM

Houston? We have a problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
And the oil refinery article noted that none have been built for like 30 years in the US (though some have been expanded).

That is true, but pretty misleading. It's a lot cheaper to expand a refinery than to build a new one. And bigger ones are more efficient. So that's how they build new capacity (it's also a bit of semantics--an oil company can add entirely new units at an existing refinery, and it's called expansion. But if they did it 5 miles away it would be considered a new refinery)

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

07-18-2007 05:58 PM

Houston? We have a problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That is true, but pretty misleading. It's a lot cheaper to expand a refinery than to build a new one. And bigger ones are more efficient. So that's how they build new capacity (it's also a bit of semantics--an oil company can add entirely new units at an existing refinery, and it's called expansion. But if they did it 5 miles away it would be considered a new refinery)

You ARE an Oil Company shill!

andViolins

07-18-2007 06:00 PM

Houston? We have a problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Who'd miss DC or NJ?

Bruce Springsteen. And the Jersey Devil.

aV

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:23 AM.

Page 143 of 334

« First

133

141