Alphabet clamps down on GOOG

This may be the first time I get to say “I told you so”.  In August, I predicted that the creation of the holding company structure at Google would lead to the eventual shutdown or sale of various high concept pieces of Google.

It’s begun.

Today, Alphabet announced the free spending days are over.  “The fiscal discipline era has now descended upon everything” says Tony Fadell, whose Nest was purchased for over $3 billion in what the company may now refer to as the “drunken sailor era”.

GOOG is also seeking to sell Boston Dynamics, the maker of spooky humanoid robots and even spookier videos of humans beating up said robots.  It makes me fearful of the coming robot apocalypse.  Although not as fearful as the potential Trumpocalypse, now trending at 2 of 4 horsemen at website Slate.

We should expect more from Alphabet in this vein.  Entrepreneurs seeking to sell their companies to Google for 3,000x revenues have probably seen the window close.  The loss of free Odwalla can’t be far behind.

Logic takes a holiday in politics

This is a partial list of things I don’t understand that are used for rationale in our current political dialogue:

1. “The President should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice in an election year”, but the 34 Senators and 438 Congresspeople that are up for re-election this year keep doing their work?  Shouldn’t Chuck Grassley wait until the people have a voice in his reelection before he takes a stand this year?  Do we elect Presidents for 3 years, Senators for 5, and Congresspeople for 1 year?
2. Constitutional originalism — does that mean that the “right to bear arms” is limited to single shot, muzzle loading muskets?  Are black people only counted as 3/5ths of a human?
3. “Protesters are violating our First Amendment rights to free speech!”  I am baffled that no one points out that the First Amendment only prevents Congress, not individuals or corporations, from limiting speech.  It is uninvolved in various people trying to yell over each other at a campaign rally.  You can even punch protestors, if you want, but you’ve now violated a different law.
4. Back to the Supreme Court nominating process.   The Constitution doesn’t say the Senate has to vote on nominees, simply that they should “Advise and Consent“.  Does that mean that doing nothing is an implicit consent, similar to a pocket veto being an implicit veto?  Or does it mean that the Senate will devolve into not holding hearings on any vacancies until the President and the Senate are part of the same party?