Houston? We have a problem.
 

And lack of consumer goods, with increased prices for the ones that remain. They can watch L&O and Homicide.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

I'm not indifferent to the prospect of losing LA (or the Bay Area, or Chicago, or -- to a lesser extent, admittedly, Detroit or Houston), but I've got to believe that the threat of terrorist attack to NY/NJ and DC/MD/VA is on a different level. Hell, it would be a shame to lose Santa Fe, but I wouldn't put it at the top of the list for grant money.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

Um, OK. But if they know all the money is going to NY/DC areas, they will hit other things. You may value the federal government more than the economy, though.

ETA I would think they are funding the protection of the centers of government in DC sufficiently, and knocking out a major port as well as a little over 1/5 of the country's refinery capacity (or, that's what the TX Gulf Coast had in 2005) would be quite a blow. Though, based on ncs's post, they may go more for psychological damage -- and they might want to prey on the parts of the country that haven't already been attacked in that way. And, of course, none of us really know how susceptible to attack different existing structures/stuff are right now.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

The threat is on a different level how? The two plots they've broken up and then disclosed that I'm aware of since 9/11* involved Library Tower in LA and the Golden Gate Bridge in SF.


*(Though I'd guess there have been others that are slipping my mind.)

Houston? We have a problem.
 

But, come on, you've got to put Santa Fe north of Houston, right? Have you been to Houston?

Houston? We have a problem.
 

Yes.
http://thesuperficial.com/2007/07/li...itoring-04.jpg

Houston? We have a problem.
 

What's not to like about a girl who gets through rehab on whipits and cough meds?

Anita Dick
 

Bill O'Reilly making an ass of himself, but in an amusing way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGqaEZb3B8Y

Houston? We have a problem.
 

If that's what they'll do, then the grants are pointless, because you can't defend everything. The premise of focusing the money is that the certain places are much more likely to be hit. NYC is commercial capital of the country, and DC is the political capital, so they have a particular resonance for outsiders. If you want to scare the pants of the average American, the thing to do would be to hit an ordinary mall or high school, but they don't seem to think like that.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

It's not symbolic. WTC was a specific mission, started in 1993.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

Library Tower, eh? Is that where they keep both of the books in LA? That would be a real loss.

OK, I'm convinced that LA and SF go back on the list. But I still don't buy that Houston's shrimping activities make it a national target.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

In Fred Thompson's America, that'll happen anyway.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

And you know better than anyone else what is most likely to be hit? Sometimes you are more of an ass than a conservative is.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

Sorry US Bank Tower. They called it Library Tower to try to make people think of the historic LA library at the base of it before US Bank put up some cash for naming rights, but unless it's been blown up in a movie recently, nothing in LA is truly a "landmark".


ETA: The whole terrorists-wanted-to-blow-it-up thing hasn't served Library Tower very well, it turns out. For some reason tenants don't want to be in that building any more (much like the Sears Tower). Latham currently takes up a couple of elevator banks there (and in Sears Tower - with similar plans there, I believe), but they have plans to vacate for their own building sometime in the next couple of years. So I've heard.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

I think it's more a command center thing.

Houston is home to Halliburton. So it's more important than DC.