The day the hockey died

I was saddened (if not surprised) by the announcement that the Adirondack Frostbite will cease operations. This upcoming winter will be the first that the Glens Falls Civic Center won't host professional hockey since the building opened in 1979.

For the last 20 years, going to watch hockey at the Civic Center on Saturday evenings has been a winter tradition for me.

However, it's sadly become a tradition for fewer and fewer people. Average attendance for the American Hockey League's Adirondack Red Wings was over 4500 throughout the 1980s but started declining in the early 1990s. In 1999, the AHL team left was replaced by a United Hockey League franchise (the Icehawks, who became the Frostbite a few years later).

Attendance kept falling after the UHL's arrival and never recovered. In the most recent season, the Frostbite averaged about 1900 fans per game despite having a pretty successful team.

Sadly, some fans are blaming co-owners Steve Levy and Barry Melrose (more well-known as ESPN hockey commentators). The fact of the matter is that Levy and Melrose saved the franchise from collapse two and a half years ago. They lost a lot of their own money on the franchise and it was grossly unfair for some partisans to blame them for the team's demise. It's easy to say 'stick with it' when it's with someone else's money!

The bottom line is that thousands of fans who regularly attended the AHL Red Wings never even considered going to a UHL Icehawks/Frosbite game. I never hesitated despite the drop in level because I love hockey and because it's not like there's a ton of stuff to do in Glens Falls during a Saturday evening in the winter. But too many so-called fans never came back. If the game's entertaining, then that's what it's all about.

But too many local hockey fans never gave the UHL a chance. That's not Barry Melrose's fault. Far from attacking him and Levy, fans should be thanking them for giving us two and a half more years of hockey.

USA 0-3 Czech Republic

It's one thing to lose. But it's another thing to look like you've never played together before.

The Czechs are an excellent team and they may well have won even if we hadn't played like complete garbage. But we could've made it a little harder on them. Pumping in long balls to a lone forward playing against a quartet of 6'3 defenders? Too many balls were in the air period. When we played quickly and on the ground, good things happened. Only problem is that I can count on hand the number of times we actually did that.

Was there anything good about our performance? Eddie Johnson had some moments. Landon Donovan looked dangerous too the three or four times he touched the ball.

But energy? Zilch. Passing? Utter crap. Creativity? Huh? Decision making speed? Glacial. In game adjustments? Non-existent.


Embarassing.

Not the result, but the performance.

Further proof Americans hate soccer

I don't put much stock in these online polls and I know they can be stuffed but this one from ESPN.com caught my eye:

"How will you be watching today's USA-Czech Republic World Cup game?"

Taking the day off from work/school. Taking a long lunch. Secretly watching at work/school. Following online. Won't be watching the game.

36% answered 'won't be watching the game' which means that 64% will.

Almost 95,000 votes so far.

Amnesty for 'legal' activities

Conservatives fumed over proposals to reform the nation’s immigration laws that would create a guest worker program. ‘This is amnesty,’ they screamed. They were furious about proposals which they say would reward and legitimize illegal behavior. The American government must always ensure respect for the law.

At least that’s what the right believed when the question was immigrant scapegoats.

Now, GOP Sen. Arlen Specter is proposing to give Pres. Bush blanket amnesty for the probably illegal warrantless spying on domestic citizens program.

The administration argues that the program is legal because it says it's legal. And the Bush administration has a long tradition of being sole arbitrer of the Constitution. Separation of powers went out the window years ago.

But if spying on citizens without a warrant is perfectly legal, then why is an amnesty needed?

As Adirondack Musing asks, why stop there? Why not go ahead and give Bush blanket amnesty for all laws he might break in the future? It'd probably save a lot of investigative time and money.

Shock! Amazement!

Earlier this week, The Guardian newspaper did something absolutely unprecedented for a English sport media outlet. It ran a column about US soccer that was not only mostly positive, but fair and even-handed.

Even more shockingly, the article was largely free of condescension, patronization and sarcastic. This is a serious violation of the English sport media's code of conduct with regard to coverage of the Beautiful Game in America.

I don't think the piece had a single snide use of the phrase "football, or 'sawker' as the Yanks call it." A version of this phrase is pretty much obligatory in any English media report on soccer in the US as is the pretense that it's the most original and creative observation in the world.

To read this ground-breaking article, click here

The party starts today!

The world's greatest party starts today when the World Cup opens in Germany. Given that I'm home injured, it's not the worst thing in the world to have 6 hours a day of top soccer!

My predictions...

WINNER: Argentina. I always pick Argentina even though they always lose and even though everyone else is picking Brazil. Picking Brazil is like picking Duke to win March Madness. I think the lack of expectations might work in the Argies favor this time. Plus, I love Lionel Messi. (Alternatives: holders Brazil and hosts Germany are also good choices. If the Czechs stay healthy, watch out for them)

SURPRISE: Costa Rica. Everyone thinks CONCACAF (North/Central America and the Carribean confederation) is crap but I'd like to see England go play a competitive match in Costa Rica or Guatemala. CR are a good little team and it wouldn't surprise me to see them do well. (Alternatives: maybe Angola or Ivory Coast. Ivory Coast is much better but Angola have an easier group)

DISAPPOINTMENT: Almost by definition it must be Brazil because everyone expects them to win. But given the difficult group and some of the scoring problems they've had, it wouldn't shock me to see the Netherlands go out in the first round. (Alternative: England and Mexico, because I can't stand either of them)

STRANGEST MATCH FOR WHAT'S HAPPENING OFF THE PITCH: Serbia & Montenegro vs Ivory Coast. This match features two countries, each divided. Montenegro recently voted in a referendum to secede from Serbia. But since they qualified as a combined entity, they will participate as a combined entity despite the vote. A majority of Ivory Coast territory is controlled by rebels. The rebels and loyalists have signed truces and 'peace agreements' more often than Bush has been dead wrong on Iraq. Oddly, the peoples of all four territories will likely be fully behind their team. (Alternatives: the colonizer-colonized matches between Angola-Portugal and Togo-France)

THE US: The US brings its best ever team to a World Cup but they are also part of their most difficult opening round group ever. Forget what the stupid FIFA computer rankings say. The US is NOT #5 in the world (somewhere between 9 and 12 is more like it). But the US' first two opponents are top five caliber: Italy and the Czech Republic. The upside: both of those powers have major injury worries. Just getting out of the first round would be a major achievement given this group. And even that would set up an almost certain second round clash with defending champions and favorites Brazil. If the US matched the 2002 quarterfinal run this time, it would be the greatest achievement in US soccer history.

FORZA USA!

Hiatus

I have taken a brief hiatus from this blog for medical reasons. I will resume regular publishing within the next two weeks. Thanks.

Update: I've had a few private inquiries. I injured myself playing soccer (football). It is not extremely serious but I will be virtually immobile for several weeks. I may occassionally blog about the World Cup during my recovery. After all, if you're stuck at home with little do other than sleep, read and watch TV, having it happen during the World Cup is probably the least bad time. On the other hand, it also kills me to be exposed to all this high level soccer but not be able to go anywhere near the field (pitch) during it. I must have a World Cup curse as my only other serious soccer injury occured during the 1998 tournament.

Ending legalized gerrymandering

One of our local NPR affiliates ran fascinating interview with the director of Common Cause New York, Rachel Leon. With the nation's most dysfunctional legislature and rigged electoral laws, New Yorkers rely on Common Cause and other good government groups to speak out for the interests of citizens.

Leon spoke primarily about how to reform New York's obviously broken political system. The first step is redistricting reform.

I've always considered electoral reform to be the most important reform to impose on this state's government. Progressives tend to focus on other 'sexy' causes like universal health care or instant runoff voting. And while those causes are important, redistricting reform is the most fundamental.

Simply put, such reform is a PRE-CONDITION for the advancement of any progressive causes.

Right now, citizens have almost no impact on Albany. Everything in the legislature is controlled by the leaders of the two chambers, with plenty of input from lobbyists.

Redistricting reform would change the fundamental equation.

Right now, legislators choose their voters long before voters get to choose their legislators. Legalized gerrymandering ensures that the vast majority of legislative districts are either overwhelmingly Democratic or overwhelmingly Republican.

There has been an implicit agreement between the Republican Senate majority leader and the Democrat Assembly Speaker to agree to legislative districts that helps preserve the majority of each. Each leader has foresaken their co-party members in the other chamber to preserve their own power.

This is why the Republicans have controlled the Senate since the late 60s (despite the state's voter registration being overwhelmingly Democrat) and the governor's chair for the last dozen years, but haven't come close to controlling the Assembly in a quarter century.

This gerrymandering effectively makes incumbents virtually unaccountable, as most are representing districts whose registrations are overwhelmingly of their own party. Most incumbents get weak opponents. A disturbing number don't get any opponents at all.

To wit, there are 62 members of the state Senate. In the 2004 elections, 4 incumbents lost their re-election race. This was considered a virtual revolution in New York politics.

It's commonly known that most legalized gerrymandering is done by drawing odd shaped, sprawling districts to ensure overwhelming majorities for one party and sometimes even to exclude a potential strong challenger to an incumbent. Director Leon also noted a different way upstate districts get gerrymandered. She pointed out that districts include the prison population in the census counting. There is a very large prison population in many upstate counties. Prisoners, of course, can't vote. This doesn't necessarily affect the partisan makeup of the districts but it certainly makes a mockery out of one man, one vote. (For some reason, all I could think of when she talked about this was the three-fifths compromise).

Legalized gerrymandering is choking off what's left of democracy in New York state.

The solution is fairly straight forward: an independent re-districting committee. Other states like Iowa and Arizona choose a panel of retired judges to re-draw the lines. This panel can be chosen with input from the governor, from the legislative leaders, even from the secretary of state or attorney general.

The panel would submit the proposed new district lines to the legislature. But they would be compelled to either accept or reject the panel's plans. Legislators could not amend them.

While not without potential flaws, this would certainly be a great improvement over the current system of legislators choosing their voters. It would take the power out of basically two men (Assembly speaker and Senate majority leader) and give it to a panel of hopefully disinterested former judges.

The plan's biggest virtue is, of course, its greatest challenge. Because the plan takes imperial power away from the speaker and the majority leader, it makes it very difficult to persuade those two men to give up that power. And since lack of legislative accountability is an integral part of the system, it's very hard to exert any pressure on those two men or even on their co-party members who selected them. Thus, you have a catch-22.

Fortunately, good government groups and, yes, newspaper editorialists are around to prevent the issue of reform from dying.