Leaderboard

You should know better than this. It has nothing to do with being "awfully sensitive". This is not college or pro football where rumors and reasons for leaving come with the job...as well as the salary. Many school districts around the state frown heavily upon current coaches applying for other jobs. The last place an administrator wants to see that one of their coaches is looking for a job or had an interview, is on a public forum. It is entirely a coach's decision to determine when his current employer should find out he has applied for a job elsewhere. Finding out on a public forum could put the current position at risk; or at least create a rift between the admin and the coach....unnecessarily. Thanks for understanding

I feel like the number of assistant jobs posted on IFCA site are a reflection of there being a place to post assistant jobs. In the past most of the time, HC's recruited their area. Now Facebook and other sites allow for a much larger search area. Schools have always used lay coaches and will continue to because school faculties aren't comprised of coaches only. Speaking of which, if anyone is interested in coaching at Crawford County, let me know. I designed some sweet polos for next season.

So does this mean Indiana now resubmits their bid to Amazon for H2? What a colossal waste of time, effort, and political capital for a nothing piece of legislation.

As I have stated before, she and those of her ilk are merely the D's Tea Party. At least on the face of it early on, that seemed to be the case. What seems to be interesting is this group is they seem to be driving the party to the left. Many of the 147 D candidates for pres seem to be echoing a lot of their ideas. I also get a strong sense that VOC and some of her ilk are starting to annoy some of the D leadership, which ultimately could lead to their demise politically. Say what you want about Nancy Pelosi, but she still wields a lot of power. Moving into the 2020 race, I see a lot of jockeying for position with everyone trying to veer farther left and out left everyone else. They need to remember that Joe Sixpack voter is not the dude that elected VOC into office, you have to play to the masses in flyover country, the left is going to win in NY, CA, etc., areas where these leftist ideas play well, but those states don't determine national elections. Personally I think the left are setting themselves up to fail. They still don't understand why Trump is president, and continue to do everything in their power to see that he gets elected again.

I was updating yesterday and came across the opening on the DOE site: went to Muncie School Corp and was listed there. That is all I could find.

But hey, Indiana may now possibly, maybe, get dropped off of some list.

Craig Buzea, former HFC at Portage and Michigan City is the head coach at HF.

3 Reasons Why Facebook's Zuckerberg Wants More Government Regulation: https://mises.org/wire/3-reasons-why-facebooks-zuckerberg-wants-more-government-regulation But what sort of regulation will this be? Specifically, Zuckerberg concludes "we need new regulation in four areas: harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability." He wants more countries to adopt versions of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. Needless to say, anyone hearing such words from Zuckerberg should immediately assume this newfound support for regulation is calculated to help Facebook financially. After all, this is a man who lied repeatedly to his customers (and Congress) about who can access users' personal data, and how it will be used. He's a man who once referred to Facebook users as "Dumb F-cks." Facebook lied to customers (not be confused with the users) about the success of Facebook's video platform. The idea that Zuckerberg now voluntarily wants to sacrifice some of his own power and money for humanitarian purposes is, at best, highly doubtful. (Although politicians like Mark Warner seem to take it at face value.) Fortunately for Zuckerberg, thanks to the economic realities of government regulation, he can both support government regulation and enrich himself personally. Those who are familiar with the effects of government regulation will not be surprised to hear a billionaire CEO throw his support behind it. Large firms with dominant market share have long made pace with government regulation because it often helps these firms create and solidify monopoly power for themselves. Specifically, there are three ways that regulation will help Facebook. One: Regulations Will Give Facebook More Monopoly Power Many Facebook critics like to claim that Facebook is a natural monopoly. That is, they think Facebook is so dominant in the marketplace, that it can use its supposed market power to keep out competitors. We're told that Facebook has so many users, no serious competition will ever be possible. But remember MySpace? People used to say exactly the same thing that that social media platform. A recently as 2007, The Guardian was asking "Will Myspace ever lose its monopoly?" Xerox corporation was once a tech powerhouse, as well. It has now all but disappeared. Obviously, the answer to the Guardian's question is "yes." But we're now hearing about how Facebook is a monopoly. The reality, however, is that unless governments artificially erects barriers to entry, no firm can expect a safe place as a dominant firm. Other firms with new ideas will come along, threatening the older firm's dominance. The answer to this problem, from the point of view of a firm like Facebook, is to make things for expensive and difficult for smaller startups and potential competitors. Facebook knows that if government regulations of tech firms increase, the cost of doing business will increase. Larger firms will be able to deal with these additional costs more easily than smaller start ups. Big firms can access financing more easily. They have more equity. They already have sizable market share and can afford to be more conservative. Large firms can absorb high labor costs, higher legal costs, and the higher fixed costs brought on by regulation. A high-regulation environment is an anti startup, anti-entrepreneurial environment. Two: Zuckerberg and Facebook Will Help Write the New Rules In an earlier age, many might have taken Zuckerberg's new proclamation as sincere. Fortunately, we live in a cynical age, and even a beat reporter at Mashable knows how this game is played. Mashable's Karissa Bell writes: Part of the reason Zuckerberg has made peace with the idea of government regulation is the knowledge that Facebook will be one of the most powerful groups at the negotiating table when it comes to write the new regulations. In other words, Facebook will be in a position to make sure the new rules favor Facebook over its competitors. This is a common occurrence in regulatory schemes and is known as “regulatory capture.” When new regulatory bodies are created to regulate firms like Facebook and other dominant firms, the institutions with the most at stake in a regulatory agency’s decisions end up controlling the agencies themselves. We see this all the time in the revolving door between legislators, regulators, and lobbyists. And you can also be sure that once this happens, the industry will close itself off to new innovative firms seeking to enter the marketplace. The regulatory agencies will ensure the health of the status quo providers at the cost of new entrepreneurs and new competitors. Moreover, as economist Douglass North noted, regulatory regimes do not improve efficiency, but serve the interests of those with political power: "Institutions are not necessarily or even usually created to be socially efficient; rather they, or at least the formal rules, are created to serve the interests of those with the bargaining power to create new rules." After all, how much incentive does the average person have in monitoring new regulations, staying in touch with regulators, and attempting to affect the regulatory process? The incentive is almost zero. The incentive for regulated firms, on the other hand, is quite large. Not only will a small start up lack the resources and political pull to challenge Facebook in the rule-making sphere, but those small firms won't be be large enough to be considered important "stakeholders" on any level. Thus, Facebook will continue to wield more power than its smaller competitors through its regulatory power. Three: It Will Limit Facebook's Legal Exposure Another big benefit of regulation for Facebook will be the potential for using government regulation to limit Facebook's legal liability when things go wrong. Bell continues: Put another way, Facebook can protect itself form both the legal and public-relations repercussions to itself when it uses its platform to delete the posts and visibility of users with whom Facebook employees disagree. As FTC commissioner Brendan Carr put it, Facebook's proposed regulatory agenda would allow it to "outsource[e] censorship." Not only would this put the federal government in a position to be directly determining which opinions and ideas ought to be eliminated from tech platforms, it would also allow Facebook to pretend to be an innocent third party: "Don't blame us for deleting your posts," Facebook could then say. "The government made us do it!" Moreover, regulation can be employed by firms like Facebook to shield the firm from lawsuits. Potentially, in the marketplace, Facebook could be sued for using its platform to endanger domestic abuse victims, or victims of suicide. Whether or not the firm should be found guilty of such things would be complex legal questions decided on a case-by case-basis. However, regulation can be used to circumvent this process entirely, and serve the interests of large, abusive firms. This phenomenon was explained by Murray Rothbard in the context of building regulations: Let's apply this to the tech industry: Firm A is a new startup which has developed a way to make money in a way that satisfies consumers, and does not expose them to any unwanted harassment, de-platforming, or violations of privacy. Meanwhile, Facebook (Firm B) continues to use its dominance in the regulatory process to keep in place costly regulations that prevent new startups from making much headway. These same regulations, however, continue to allow privacy violations, and other abuses up to a certain thresholdestablished in by regulators. Thus, the outcome is this: Firm A is unable to deploy its new, inventive, non-abusive model at all because regulatory costs are too high. Meanwhile, Facebook can continue to endanger and abuse some users because regulations allow it. Moreover, Facebook enjoys greater immunity form lawsuits because it complies with regulations.Thus consumers are denied both the benefits of the new startup and legal remedies from suing Facebook for its continued abuse. In short, Zuckerberg's pro-regulation position is just a pro-Zuckerberg position. By further politicizing and regulating the internet, policymakers will assist large firms — and their billionaire owners — in crushing the competition, and ensuring the public has fewer choices.

Again, no real answers from Gonzo. Tell me, where do you get all of your "information?" CNN? Media Matters? If you can point out where something I linked to at reason.com is not factual, then please, speak up and provide details.

Since you are a simpleton, NightHawk, that makes it quite easy.

Yes, I agree. Does tiny Argos have a town income tax?

DeVos/muda2020~Not a penny for Pinheads

I understand the opposition to discussing rumors. I have no problem with discussions like “I think Coach .... would be a great hire for that job.” However, if a coach is really that concerned about their current employer finding out if they’ve applied for another job, they might want to be honest with their employer or consider whether they really want to jeopardize their current job if their employer would be upset to learn that they have applied somewhere else. If they are applying and don’t want their employer to find out, I think they have chosen to put themselves in that vulnerable position by doing so. If they apply and it gets back to their current employer, that is their own fault. They chose to apply without having the courtesy to tell their current employer that they have an interest in another position. Be honest and tell the admin where you currently work what you’re doing, and in most cases from my own experience, they will generally be supportive when a coach does what they think is best for their family and their own career. If they aren’t supportive, is that really a place a coach would want to stay? We can disagree, but in my opinion, I don’t see any reason why it would be wrong to discuss candidates if they have applied for a coaching position. If you are really that concerned about people finding out, maybe you shouldn’t apply.

http://reason.com/reasontv/2018/04/11/mark-zuckerberg-vs-silicon-valleys-richa Agreed. But of course smart tycoons like Mr. Zuckerberg will use government regulations to protect itself from competition., which I'm sure is what all the supporters of government regulation really support.

https://www.cato.org/news-releases/2019/4/2/new-billboards-blame-onerous-jones-act-snarling-traffic-along-eastern Agreed. This antiquated federal law needs to go.