Second Ave. Subway Could Be Delayed Again Due to Station Problems

To no one’s surprise, some work in the first phase is running behind

The under-construction 72nd Street station in September 2015 Metropolitan Transportation Authority / Patrick Cashin

The MTA has repeatedly said that the first phase of the Second Avenue Subway will be open by this December, but a new report suggests that work on the line’s forthcoming stations isn’t keeping pace with that schedule.

In advance of the MTA’s oversight committee’s meeting, Second Avenue Sagas took a look through a PDF that outlines status updates on many of the MTA’s Capital Construction projects (including the fact that the L train shutdown could begin in 2019). In it, the agency’s Independent Engineering Consultant (IEC) notes that delays in work on the 72nd Street station “has not reached the level necessary to support the accelerated schedule.” Specifically, installation of the station’s escalators, HVAC, and tunnel vent systems is running behind—in the case of the escalators, by as much as four weeks.

Meanwhile, escalator and elevator installation is also running behind at the 86th and 96th street stations, while work on the 63rd Street station is currently on track.

The MTA, for its part, says in the report that these delays shouldn’t impact the December 2016 deadline, but as SAS’s Ben Kabak points out, “the key updates will arrive in June when the testing schedule must come into focus to meet the December revenue service date.” So for now, it’s a waiting game…but considering the MTA’s history with delays, we’re not holding our breath.

Advertisements

Comets to Battle with Albany in First Round of Calder Cup

The Utica Comets announced today the dates for their match-up with the Albany Devils in the North Division best-of-five Semifinals of the American Hockey League’s 2016 Calder Cup Playoffs.

The North Division’s second seed, the Albany Devils, finished the season with 46-20-8-2 record and set franchise record for wins (46), points (102), goals against (167) and home wins (27). The series will begin Friday, Apr. 22 at Albany’s Times Union Center at 7p.m. Utica will host Albany for Game 3, and if necessary, Game 4. The first game of the series in Utica – Game 3 – will be played on Tuesday, Apr. 26. Game 4, if necessary, will be on Thursday, Apr. 28. All home playoff games will begin at 7pm at the Utica Memorial Auditorium. If needed, the series will shift back to Albany for Game 5 on Saturday, Apr. 30 at 5p.m.

All playoffs games can be heard live on 94.9 FM KROCK, the flagship radio station of the Utica Comets, and live video can be streamed through http://www.AHLLive.com.

The Comets collected six points in eight games with a record of 2-4-2-0 against the Devils this season. In the all-time series, the Comets own a 2-10-2-0 record.

Tickets to Game 3 will go on sale to the general public on Friday, April 22 at 10a.m. at The AUD’s box office. Tickets will only be sold at the Labatt Blue Box Office (facing Cornelia St.). Tickets will be sold online (www.EmpireStateTix.com) and over the phone (866-688-8750) through Empire State Tickets starting at 12 p.m.

Season ticket holders have the opportunity to purchase their seats from the regular season from now until April 21.

2016 North Division Semifinals– Utica vs. Albany

Game 1 – Friday, April 22nd – 7p.m. @ Albany (Times Union Center)
Game 2 – Saturday, April 23th  – 5p.m. @ Albany (Times Union Center)
Game 3 – Tuesday, April 26th– 7p.m. vs. Albany (Utica Memorial Auditorium)
**Game 4 – Thursday, April 28th – 7p.m. vs. Albany (Utica Memorial Auditorium)
**Game 5 – Saturday, April 30th – 5p.m. @ Albany (Times Union Center)

** If necessary

The Division Semi-finals (first round) will be best-of-five series. The Division Finals, the Conference Finals and the Calder Cup Finals are a best-of-seven series.  Home-ice advantage in all series will be granted to the team with the higher regular-season points percentage.

Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon

The argument over whether Hillary Clinton is a neocon may have been settled by her hawkish debate performance on Thursday, which followed her Israel-pandering speech before AIPAC, reports Robert Parry.

 

f there were any doubts that Hillary Clinton favors a neoconservative foreign policy, her performance at Thursday’s debate should have laid them to rest. In every meaningful sense, she is a neocon and – if she becomes President – Americans should expect more global tensions and conflicts in pursuit of the neocons’ signature goal of “regime change” in countries that get in their way.

Beyond sharing this neocon “regime change” obsession, former Secretary of State Clinton also talks like a neocon. One of their trademark skills is to use propaganda or “perception management” to demonize their targets and to romanticize their allies, what is called “gluing white hats” on their side and “gluing black hats” on the other.

So, in defending her role in the Libyan “regime change,” Clinton called the slain Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi “genocidal” though that is a gross exaggeration of Gaddafi’s efforts to beat back Islamic militants in 2011. But her approach fits with what the neocons do. They realize that almost no one will dare challenge such a characterization because to do so opens you to accusations of being a “Gaddafi apologist.”

Similarly, before the Iraq War, the neocons knew that they could level pretty much any charge against Saddam Hussein no matter how false or absurd, knowing that it would go uncontested in mainstream political and media circles. No one wanted to be a “Saddam apologist.”

Clinton, like the neocons, also shows selective humanitarian outrage. For instance, she laments the suffering of Israelis under crude (almost never lethal) rocket fire from Gaza but shows next to no sympathy for Palestinians being slaughtered by sophisticated (highly lethal) Israeli missiles and bombs.

She talks about the need for “safe zones” or “no-fly zones” for Syrians opposed to another demonized enemy, Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, but not for the people of Gaza who face the wrath of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Yes, I do still support a no-fly zone [in Syria] because I think we need to put in safe havens for those poor Syrians who are fleeing both Assad and ISIS and have some place that they can be safe,” Clinton said. But she showed no such empathy for Palestinians defenseless against Israel’s “mowing the grass” operations against men, women and children trapped in Gaza.

In Clinton’s (and the neocons’) worldview, the Israelis are the aggrieved victims and the Palestinians the heartless aggressors. Referring to the Gaza rocket fire, she said: “I can tell you right now I have been there with Israeli officials going back more than 25 years that they do not seek this kind of attacks. They do not invite the rockets raining down on their towns and villages. They do not believe that there should be a constant incitement by Hamas aided and abetted by Iran against Israel. …

“So, I don’t know how you run a country when you are under constant threat, terrorist attack, rockets coming at you. You have a right to defend yourself.”

Ignoring History

Clinton ignored the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which dates back to the 1940s when Israeli terrorist organizations engaged in massacres to drive Palestinians from their ancestral lands and murdered British officials who were responsible for governing the territory. Israeli encroachment on Palestinian lands has continued to the present day.

But Clinton framed the conflict entirely along the propaganda lines of the Israeli government: “Remember, Israel left Gaza. They took out all the Israelis. They turned the keys over to the Palestinian people. And what happened? Hamas took over Gaza. So instead of having a thriving economy with the kind of opportunities that the children of the Palestinians deserve, we have a terrorist haven that is getting more and more rockets shipped in from Iran and elsewhere.”

So, Clinton made clear – both at the debate and in her recent AIPAC speech – that she is fully in line with the neocon reverence for Israel and eager to take out any government or group that Israel puts on its enemies list. While waxing rhapsodic about the U.S.-Israeli relationship – promising to take it “to the next level” – Clinton vows to challenge Syria, Iran, Russia and other countries that have resisted or obstructed the neocon/Israeli “wish list” for “regime change.”

In response to Clinton’s Israel-pandering, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who once worked on an Israeli kibbutz as a young man, did the unthinkable in American politics. He called out Clinton for her double standards on Israel-Palestine and suggested that Netanyahu may not be the greatest man on earth.

“You gave a major speech to AIPAC,” Sanders said, “and you barely mentioned the Palestinians. … All that I am saying is we cannot continue to be one-sided. There are two sides to the issue. … There comes a time when if we pursue justice and peace, we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time.”

But in Hillary Clinton’s mind, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is essentially one-sided. During her speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last month, she depicted Israel as entirely an innocent victim in the Mideast conflicts.

“As we gather here, three evolving threats — Iran’s continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to de-legitimize Israel on the world stage — are converging to make the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever,” she declared.

“The United States and Israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever and more determined than ever to prevail against our common adversaries and to advance our shared values. … This is especially true at a time when Israel faces brutal terrorist stabbings, shootings and vehicle attacks at home. Parents worry about letting their children walk down the street. Families live in fear.”

Yet, Clinton made no reference to Palestinian parents who worry about their children walking down the street or playing on a beach and facing the possibility of sudden death from an Israeli drone or warplane. Instead, she scolded Palestinian adults. “Palestinian leaders need to stop inciting violence, stop celebrating terrorists as martyrs and stop paying rewards to their families,” she said.

Then, Clinton promised to put her future administration at the service of the Israeli government. Clinton said, “One of the first things I’ll do in office is invite the Israeli prime minister to visit the White House. And I will send a delegation from the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs to Israel for early consultations. Let’s also expand our collaboration beyond security.”

Pleasing Phrases

In selling her neocon policies to the American public, Clinton puts the military aspects in pleasing phrases, like “safe zones” and “no-fly zones.” Yet, what she means by that is that as President she will invade Syria and push “regime change,” following much the same course that she used to persuade a reluctant President Obama to invade Libya in 2011.

The Libyan operation was sold as a “humanitarian” mission to protect innocent civilians though Gaddafi was targeting Islamic militants much as he claimed at the time and was not engaging in any mass slaughter of civilians. Clinton also knew that the European allies, such as France, had less than noble motives in wanting to take out Gaddafi.

As Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal explained to her, the French were concerned that Gaddafi was working to develop a pan-African currency which would have given Francophone African countries greater freedom from their former colonial master and would undermine French economic dominance of those ex-colonies.

In an April 2, 2011 email, Blumenthal informed Clinton that sources close to one of Gaddafi sons reported that Gaddafi’s government had accumulated 143 tons of gold and a similar amount of silver that “was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency” that would be an alternative to the French franc.

Blumenthal added that “this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.” Sarkozy also wanted a greater share of Libya’s oil production and to increase French influence in North Africa, Blumenthal wrote.

But few Americans would rally to a war fought to keep North Africa under France’s thumb. So, the winning approach was to demonize Gaddafi with salacious rumors about him giving Viagra to his troops so they could rape more, a ludicrous allegation that was raised by then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who also claimed that Gaddafi’s snipers were intentionally shooting children.

With Americans fed a steady diet of such crude propaganda, there was little serious debate about the wisdom of Clinton’s Libyan “regime change.” Meanwhile, other emails show that Clinton’s advisers were contemplating how to exploit Gaddafi’s overthrow as the dramatic moment to declare a “Clinton Doctrine” built on using “smart power.”

On Oct. 20, 2011, when U.S.-backed rebels captured Gaddafi, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him, Secretary of State Clinton couldn’t contain her glee. Paraphrasing a famous Julius Caesar quote, she declared about Gaddafi, “we came, we saw, he died.”

But this U.S.-organized “regime change” quickly turned sour as old tribal rivalries, which Gaddafi had contained, were unleashed. Plus, it turned out that Gaddafi’s warnings that many of the rebels were Islamic militants turned out to be true. On Sept. 11, 2012, one extremist militia overran the U.S. consulate in Benghazi killing U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Soon, Libya slid into anarchy and Western nations abandoned their embassies in Tripoli. President Obama now terms the Libyan fiasco the biggest mistake of his presidency. But Clinton refuses to be chastened by the debacle, much as she appeared to learn nothing from her support for the Iraq invasion in 2003.

The Libyan Mirage

During Thursday’s debate – instead of joining Obama in recognition of the Libyan failure – Clinton acted as if she had overseen some glowing success:Well, let me say I think we did a great deal to help the Libyan people after Gaddafi’s demise. … We helped them hold two successful elections, something that is not easy, which they did very well because they had a pent-up desire to try to chart their own future after 42 years of dictatorship. I was very proud of that. …

“We also worked to help them set up their government. We sent a lot of American experts there. We offered to help them secure their borders, to train a new military. They, at the end, when it came to security issues, … did not want troops from any other country, not just us, European or other countries, in Libya.

“And so we were caught in a very difficult position. They could not provide security on their own, which we could see and we told them that, but they didn’t want to have others helping to provide that security. And the result has been a clash between different parts of the country, terrorists taking up some locations in the country.”

But that is exactly the point. Like the earlier neocon-driven “regime change” in Iraq, the “regime change” obsession blinds the neocons from recognizing that not only are these operations violations of basic international law regarding sovereignty of other nations but the invasions unleash powerful internal rivalries that neocons, who know little about the inner workings of these countries, soon find they can’t control.

Yet, America’s neocons are so arrogant and so influential that they simply move from one catastrophe to the next like a swarm of locust spreading chaos and death around the globe. They also adapt readily to changes in the political climate.

That’s why some savvy neocons, such as the Brookings Institution’s Robert Kagan, have endorsed Clinton, who The New York Times reported has become “the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes.”

Kagan told the Times, “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

Now with Clinton’s election seemingly within reach, the neocons are even more excited about how they can get back to work achieving Syrian “regime change,” overturning Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, and – what is becoming their ultimate goal – destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia and seeking “regime change” in Moscow.

After all, by helping Assad bring some stability to Syria and assisting Obama in securing the Iranian nuclear deal, Russian President Vladimir Putin has become what the neocons view as the linchpin of resistance to their “regime change” goals. Pull Putin down, the thinking goes, and the neocons can resume checking off their to-do list of Israel’s adversaries: Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.

And what could possibly go wrong by destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia and forcing some disruptive “regime change”?

By making Russia’s economy scream and instigating a Maidan-style revolt in Moscow’s Red Square, the neocons see their geopolitical path being cleared, but what they don’t take into account is that the likely successor to Putin would not be some malleable drunk like the late Russian President Boris Yeltsin but, far more likely, a hardline nationalist who might be a lot more careless with the nuclear codes than Putin.

But, hey, when has a neocon “regime change” scheme veered off into a dangerous and unanticipated direction?

A Neocon True-Believer

In Thursday’s debate, Hillary Clinton showed how much she has become a neocon true-believer. Despite the catastrophic “regime changes” in Iraq and Libya, she vowed to invade Syria, although she dresses up that reality in pretty phrases like “safe zones” and “no-fly zones.” She also revived the idea of increasing the flow of weapons to “moderate” rebels although they, in reality, mostly fight under the command umbrella of Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front.

Clinton also suggested that the Syria mess can be blamed on President Obama’s rejection of her recommendations in 2011 to authorize a more direct U.S. military intervention.Nobody stood up to Assad and removed him,” Clinton said, “and we have had a far greater disaster in Syria than we are currently dealing with right now in Libya.”

In other words, Clinton still harbors the “regime change” goal in Syria. But the problem always was that the anti-Assad forces were penetrated by Al Qaeda and what is now called the Islamic State. The more likely result from Clinton’s goal of removing Assad would be the collapse of the Syrian security forces and a victory for Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and/or the Islamic State.

If that were to happen, the horrific situation in Syria would become cataclysmic. Millions of Syrians – Alawites, Shiites, Christians, secularists and other “infidels” – would have to flee the beheading swords of these terror groups. That might well force a full-scale U.S. and European invasion of Syria with the bloody outcome probably similar to the disastrous Iraq War.

The only reasonable hope for Syria is for the Assad regime and the less radical Sunni oppositionists to work out some power-sharing agreement, stabilize most of the country, neutralize to some degree the jihadists, and then hold elections, letting the Syrian people decide whether “Assad must go!” – not the U.S. government. But that’s not what Clinton wants.

Perhaps even more dangerous, Clinton’s bellicose rhetoric suggests that she would eagerly move into a dangerous Cold War confrontation with Russia under the upside-down propaganda theme blaming tensions in Eastern Europe on “Russian aggression,” not NATO’s expansion up to Russia’s borders and the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014 which ousted an elected president and touched off a civil war.

That coup, which followed neocon fury at Putin for his helping Obama avert U.S. bombing campaigns against Syria and Iran, was largely orchestrated by neocons associated with the U.S. government, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland (Robert Kagan’s wife), Sen. John McCain and National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman.

After the violent coup, when the people of Crimea voted by 96 percent to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, the U.S. government and Western media deemed that a “Russian invasion” and when ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine rose up in resistance to the new authorities in Kiev that became “Russian aggression.”

NATO on the Move

Though President Obama should know better – and I’m told that he does know better – he has succumbed this time to pressure to go along with what he calls the Washington “playbook” of saber-rattling and militarism. NATO is moving more and more combat troops up to the Russian border while Washington has organized punishing economic sanctions aimed at disrupting the Russian economy.

Hillary Clinton appears fully onboard with the neocon goal of grabbing the Big Enchilada, “regime change” in Moscow. Rather than seeing the world as it is, she continues to look through the wrong end of the telescope in line with all the anti-Russian propaganda and the demonization of Putin, whom Clinton has compared to Hitler.

Supporting NATO’s military buildup on Russia’s border, Clinton said, “With Russia being more aggressive, making all kinds of intimidating moves toward the Baltic countries, we’ve seen what they’ve done in eastern Ukraine, we know how they want to rewrite the map of Europe, it is not in our interests [to reduce U.S. support for NATO]. Think of how much it would cost if Russia’s aggression were not deterred because NATO was there on the front lines making it clear they could not move forward.”

Though Clinton’s anti-Russian delusions are shared by many powerful people in Official Washington, they are no more accurate than the other claims about Iraq’s WMD, Gaddafi passing out Viagra to his troops, the humanitarian need to invade Syria, the craziness about Iran being the principal source of terrorism (when it is the Saudis, the Qataris, the Turks and other Sunni powers that have bred Al Qaeda and the Islamic State), and the notion that the Palestinians are the ones picking on the Israelis, not the other way around.

However, Clinton’s buying into the neocon propaganda about Russia may be the most dangerous – arguably existential – threat that a Clinton presidency would present to the world. Yes, she may launch U.S. military strikes against the Syrian government (which could open the gates of Damascus to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State); yes, she might push Iran into renouncing the nuclear agreement (and putting the Israeli/neocon goal to bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran back on the table); yes, she might make Obama’s progressive critics long for his more temperate presidency.

But Clinton’s potential escalation of the new Cold War with Russia could be both the most costly and conceivably the most suicidal feature of a Clinton-45 presidency. Unlike her times as Secretary of State, when Obama could block her militaristic schemes, there will be no one to stop her if she is elected President, surrounded by likeminded neocon advisers.

Robert Parry, Consortium News

Win or Lose, Bernie, It’s Movement-Building Time

uilding a movement for social change is a lot more important than electing a President. That’s what Bernie Sanders has said his entire life.

Imagine if Bernie won in November. He would have almost every one of the 535 members of Congress arrayed against him. He challenges the Democrats almost as much as the Republicans. That’s good! But you see the problem.

I was working in an antiwar group not long ago – Barney Frank called for a 25% reduction in the military budget. We counted the members of Congress who would support such a bill – our count added up to about 30. And Barney Frank is a big-time Hillary supporter.

Bernie said some big words standing with the Palestinians at the Brooklyn debate. It was a major break from politics as usual. But when the Senate took a vote about the latest Israel-Palestine conflict, all 100 members stood with Israel. Even Bernie recognizes what’s possible in politics.

Bernie said he was running for President in order to build the movement for social change. He didn’t think his run would turn out as well as it has. What I’m saying is that Bernie can’t forget that he’s trying to do something a lot tougher than running for President.

The Democratic Party has traditionally been the graveyard of social movements. Can Bernie change that? Not unless he changes his focus. “Not me, us” has to be more than rhetoric.

It’s great that he joins the picket lines – fights for $15 – and calls out the names of those shot by police. What’s not great is the difficulty he has connecting with the African American community – Spike Lee and Cornell West notwithstanding. He’s got the intellectuals. He needs the base.

Can you imagine a movement being built by the current Bernie campaign model – with the most progressive population in the United States basically in Hillary’s corner? It’s a nightmare.

Bernie is slowly turning it around. He is finally even-steven with Hillary in the Latino community. In the African American community he’s still got “a ways to go.”

What Bernie needs to move toward is some movement-building. After all, he has promised that all along. His campaign needs to turn to the social movements and ask, “Where should we stand and fight?” Yes, he needs to aggressively support movement organizers to run for office. But, more importantly, he needs to remind people of the importance of being active where you are: Active at work. Active at school. Active while on public transport. Active while in public places. Building stronger social networks. Rejuvenating the fight for workers’ rights. Making the cops stand back.

As unlikely allies – the “libertarians for Bernie” – have said, it can’t be just about giving away free stuff. There has to be social space for people to come together – physically, not just on the internet. If Bernie folds up his tent after the election season is over, it will be a major tragedy.

We don’t need Bernie as a leader. We need Bernie as a role model on how to build power from below. Win or lose, the movement for social change in America needs to toughen up.

Nine hundred terrific people were arrested in Democracy Spring this week to get money out of politics. Can you imagine if it was 90,000 people surrounding the Capitol? That’s when America’s rulers will feel the bern.

Or 90,000 people telling Mitch McConnell to get out of the way for Medicare for All or the movement will come to Kentucky and end his career?

Or the power of the people to break open like a mighty stream and ensure that no one in this country goes hungry or without work?

And then spreading that spirit around the world – which means working for peace, not war.

American elections are not the place to have that discussion. American elections usually crush the idealistic spirit.

Wouldn’t it be something to use an election as a stage for something more?

Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News

Tech Savvy GENERATION Z Entering The Workforce

Photo appears courtesy of Derek Σωκράτης Finch.  There have been a lot of articles complaining about the Millennial Generation in the workplace.  I teach college classes and have been able to get to know this new generation that is now in college and will soon be entering the workforce.  Many  refer to this new crop of young adults as Post Millennials, Gen Z or iGen as they have grown up with the Internet.

During  their young lives 911 happened and then the recession hit.  They watched as their parents lost their jobs and the value of their investments (and 401Ks) tumbled.  This has made them a bit risk adverse.  Many grew up in non-traditional households.  They have less faith in the American Dream as they have watched their parents and older sibling struggle in their careers.

Technology has strongly influenced these folks in terms of communication and education.  They have always been connected with immediate access to copious amounts of data and they use social media for socializing.  All of them have a cell phone, not as a luxury, but as a necessity.  They send texts instead of e-mailing and they know all the latest and greatest apps.  They are masters of multitasking.

I am very enthused about the potential of this group.  I have found them to have a high acceptance of new ideas.  Most of them grew up with a more diverse group of friends than their parents did and so are more accepting of others.  They seek contentment and passion in their careers rather than a lucrative salary.  For Spring Break, instead of lounging on a beach, they do volunteer work with groups like Habitat for Humanity and Disaster Relief Groups.  They want to do Internships with companies to find out more about the workplace.  They are well prepared for a global business environment and many want to work for non-profits.

The Gen Zs have the potential to be great employees.  They have the skills needed to take advantage of advanced technology and will prove very helpful to companies in today’s high tech environment.  They do not just want a job, they want what they do to help move the world forward.  They also want to be involved in their community.  Sounds like a great employee to me!

Click below to see how Wayfair, one of the largest internet retailers in the world, leveraged the power of Liaison’s Delta/ECs software package.

DOWNLOAD FREE CASE STUDY

 

 

Comets Drop Regular Season Finale

In the last regular season game of the season, the Utica Comets fell to the Binghamton Senators 4-2 at the Utica Memorial Auditorium Sunday afternoon.

Brandon Marino (1-0-1) and Brendan Gaunce (1-0-1) scored the Utica goals and Ronalds Kenins (0-1-1) and Carter Bancks (0-1-1) each finished with an assist. Joe Cannata made 25 saves in the loss.

Utica dominated out of the gates and kept the puck in the Senators zone for most of the first period. The Comets finished with an 18-5 shot advantage.

Marino got the Comets on the board first after a perfect setup by Kenins. Bancks zipped a pass up ice to Kenins, and he carried the puck down the left side of the ice. Kenins sent a perfect pass across to Marino as he streaked down the right side of the ice and found the back of the net with a one timer.

Ryan Rupert got the Senators first goal of the game to tie it at one. Rupert received a pass from Buddy Robinson and was able to put a shot past Cannata, 4:53 into the second.

Gaunce got Utica back on top, as he turned defense into instant offense, 1:33 after the Binghamton goal. Gaunce stole the puck away from a Binghamton defender in the Senators zone and sent a shot on goal as he was falling to his knees. Gaunces 17th goal of the season snuck past the glove side of the netminder for a 2-1 Comets lead.

The Senators didn’t go away easy, though. Binghamton was able to tie the game again when Casey Bailey put a pass in front of the net and Matt Puempel picked it up and was able to squeeze it past Cannata.

Bailey gave the Senators their first lead of the game late in the third. Cannata knocked down a shot from Puempel, but Bailey was waiting for the rebound and put it in for a 3-2 Senators lead.

The Senators closed it out with an empty net goal off the stick of Max McCormick to give Binghamton a 4-2 win.

Utica was able to get 40 shots on goal, while Binghamton finished with 29 shots. Joe Cannata made 25 saves for the Comets and Chris Driedger made 38 saves in net for the Senators.

Utica falls to 38-26-8-4 on the year and Binghamton improves to 31-38-6-1.

The Comets will now head to the playoffs where they will look to make another run to the Calder Cup Finals.