tom moody

Discussing "the new OPEC deal to cut oil output – the cartel’s first since 2008," the UK-based newspaper City A.M. writes:

OPEC as a whole agreed to cut 1.2m barrels per day (bpd) from production from the beginning of the new year, with the Saudis themselves bearing the brunt of the cuts with a personal reduction agreed to at just under 500,000 bpd. But as OPEC now accounts for less than half of all energy output in the world, it is a very weakened cartel...

Placing this in a larger world context, City A.M. continues, at high wattage:

This, in its way, is as momentous a shift in global power as the stunning recent Brexit and Donald Trump votes. Whereas Brexit showed Europe to be in absolute decline, while the election of Trump brings to an abrupt end 70 years of the U.S. as the global ordering power, the Saudi’s meek surrender brings to a close the long age of OPEC domination of the world’s energy market. This year truly has seen the death of one world order, along with the uncertain birth of another.

Back up there: "The election of Trump brings to an abrupt end 70 years of the U.S. as the global ordering power." This is a UK writer's perception. Let's assume it has validity. Does this mean the election of Hillary Clinton would have continued the U.S.'s role as a "global ordering power"? Is that term a euphemism for empire? If all the above is true, wouldn't a vote against Hillary be a vote against US imperial aspirations, or a de facto empire? And what is wrong with that? As Holden says in Blade Runner, "they're just questions, Leon."

Have been surprised by the extreme vehemence of Hillary voters among peers, friends, and former friends, over her election loss.
Weeping, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, and if you don't share their pain, they get really personal and ugly. They come after you about who you are, what you are wearing, what you eat, etc.
What is driving this? Is it love of Hillary? A complete phony who had to spend hours with "the two most experienced debate prep specialists in Democratic politics" to go a few rounds with... Donald Trump?
Or is it fear of Trump? Sorry, but anyone who lived through eight years of Reagan can tell you there is no difference in the "empty suit," "not qualified for office," cranky man department. The Republicans spent decades burnishing the reputation of that animatronic doll but he was the Trump of 1980. And no one got upset about Carter's loss the way Hillary supporters are bleeding from every orifice. No one cursed John Anderson voters for "giving us Reagan." Well, maybe a few did, but nothing like this.
What is going on here? Hillary voters aren't interested in why anyone voted against her but perhaps they could do some self-analysis and explain why this election is such an emotional moment for them, as opposed to any other election where the "lesser evil" candidate lost.

Update: See this July 2016 Corey Robin post on the precedentedness of Trump (my word, in response to widespread claims that Trump's positions were unprecedented among conservative politicians). "It should be possible to talk about the very real and undeniable dangers of Trump without ignoring or reinventing the insanity of American history," Robin writes, offering a quick summary of wacky statements from Goldwater and Reagan.

Note the company isn't saying its product purifies water. The language is so calculatedly obscure it makes you suspect the opposite.