Houston? We have a problem.
 

I was thinking that the presence of a big Arab (and Arab-American) population is a risk.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure the Bay Area belongs up there with the other four.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

The refineries in Beaumont and Baytown do 900k bpd, which is almost as much as the world's single biggest refinery, and are both in the Houston area. I thought I had heard that the current high fuel prices were due more to lack of refinery capacity/output and less to shortage of crude oil; that may be some pernicious rumor spread by the oil companies, though, as part of their fight to maintain higher profits and be freed from regulations.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

I think they would rather travel from Detroit to Houston and actually damage something than bomb some abandoned warehouse in Detroit. Or that we might be more concerned about that.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

It's a huge port city in addition to the refining activities.

• The Gulf Coast is a major center of economic activity. The marshlands along the Louisiana and Texas coasts provide breeding grounds and nurseries for ocean life that drive the fishing and shrimping industries. The Port of South Louisiana (between New Orleans and Baton Rouge in Laplace) and the Port of Houston are two of the ten busiest ports in the world by cargo volume.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Co..._United_States

Houston? We have a problem.
 

Or, if you are going with Ty's rEdiculous logic, because there are lots of Arab-Americans in Long Beach. Because that is where the risk is -- it's about the level of population of a suspect group, not about (a) targets or (b) level of radicalization of a suspect group. Ty is sounding kind of Slave-ish.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

Woo hoo! What do fringey and I win?

Houston? We have a problem.
 

It ascended in importance last November.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

More pictures of TCOTU crazies?

Houston? We have a problem.
 

Crude oil is much more expensive, which is a large part of the price increase.

Gasoline is more expensive because demand exceeds supply. Increasing supply is difficult because environmental regulations prevent new refineries and expansion of existing refineries. I blame people who drive hummers.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

Demand exceeds supply in terms of crude oil, or in terms of refined fuel? ETA do price changes seem driven more by changes in capacity (affected when/if a refinery goes offline temporarily) or by changes in the price of crude oil?

Of course, you may be an oil company shill.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

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.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

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.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

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

Houston? We have a problem.
 

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.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

Pork.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

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).

Houston? We have a problem.
 

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

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

Houston? We have a problem.
 

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.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

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.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

You have my proxy.

Use your power for good.

Houston? We have a problem.
 

Who'd miss DC or NJ?

Houston? We have a problem.
 

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

Houston? We have a problem.
 

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)

Houston? We have a problem.
 

You ARE an Oil Company shill!

Houston? We have a problem.
 

Bruce Springsteen. And the Jersey Devil.

aV

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.