People I Hate (one in an occasional series)

As the title suggests, there have been people raising my ire lately, and the great thing about "people" is that I don't know them and feel free to complain about their stupidity.

One such group that caught my attention recently was people who are neighbors to a high school who started complaining about the band practicing in the morning.

We all went to high school. We all had friends in the band. And we all heard the stories of the early hours and long days they put in for their craft. ("This one time, at band camp ...")

So, with school starting again, so was the band, out on the fields at 6:30 in the morning. That is until the neighbors called the city and complained about the band violating the city's noise ordinance. Now, they have to start at 7 a.m.

It's these kind of people, who move into a neighborhood, full well knowing there's something next door that will cause them some level of discomfort, and still complain, that drive me nuts. It's like the neighbors who got the Pacific Amphitheater at the Orange County Fairgrounds shut down because the noise of the concerts was too much.

Um, duh, dumbass. You moved in next door to the Orange County Fairgrounds. You think it was going to be a quiet little neighborhood? Oh, hey, by the way, you know you're right near John Wayne Airport, too, right? Where big jet planes are going to be flying over, rattling your house in the process?

I'm afraid that one day, somewhere in the future, people who moved into the homes along Interstate 15 out near the Glen Helen Pavilion are going to start complaining about the noise from the concerts at the facility that was there YEARS before their houses were built.

It's the whole "not-in-my-back-yard" syndrome (better known as NIMBY). The state of California is in the middle of a crisis with its prisons, and probably could use more ... but not in anyone's back yard (even if the back yard is 5 miles away). But we can't have early release, either.

Even worse to me is that the main complaintant has lived there for years. If the only problem you've ever had with the school is the band practicing in the morning, consider yourself lucky.

My parents' house is a mile from Loara. On most mornings, I could hear our band clearly practicing from our front yard. I can only imagine how it was for the people in the houses directly behind the school. Or how many soccer balls we lost in the back yards of the houses that were right up against our fields (might've been a few softballs, too). And how much trash and damage was left behind by the houses back by the gate by the football fields by visiting fans (or our own students). And that's not taking into account houses being toilet papered, cars being egged or the occasional "war" in the streets or extreme senior court trashing (I'm talking to you class of '88).

The worst part of the story to me was that some of the people didn't want them practicing in the morning at all. The person we talked to even went as far to complain on behalf of those who work nights or have small children.

First off, if you're the parent of a small child, you're already sleep deprived. The music might even help. And second, as someone who's worked nights exclusively for going on 10 years, the world is not built for us who work late into the evening (or overnight). You learn to sleep through the annoyances that are going on around you. You know, things like doors slamming, children screaming, car alarms going off ... sunrise.

Being a renter, I've come to deal with some realities. One such is that the landscaping crew will be outside your window every week making a racket no matter what time you get in bed. We had a one such group who started at 7 a.m. every week during the summer without fail. And when you work until midnight and go to sleep at 1:30 a.m., it's a pain. But there's nothing you can do about it - you deal with it. And I've lived near train tracks that were right next door to an airport.

So, "people," suck it up already. You'd rather the students not be in the band? Out on the streets with no extracurricular activities? Because I'm sure that can be arranged, too. And then you can complain about those damn kids being on your lawn.

Fast Food Friday

It's been a while since we've done this, so here goes...

Since small became the new big at fast food places, restaurants have tried just about anything to get you to grab their small bites.

Jack in the Box entered the market of "small" food earlier this year with its mini sirloin burgers, which I loved (and still order sorta regularly). So, it was a no brainer to try out their mini buffalo ranch chicken sandwiches.

And, well, they're OK. The mini chicken patties aren't as bad as they could be, and the buffalo and ranch provide a different taste ... but something just struck me as they weren't as good as they could have been.

Part of it is the whole sauce issue. If I want buffalo chicken, I want the buffalo sauce on the chicken. And preferably, I'd like the patty lightly tossed in the buffalo sauce (Frank's Red Hot, which they've been using for years) with the ranch placed upon top from there. But being a fast food place, having something tossed would be like asking for a steamed lobster. It's just not going to happen. The likelihood would be better that they would dunk the patty in the sauce and put too much on it.

Besides the buffalo and ranch (which does provide you with a drip hazard), you get lettuce on your mini buns. The whole think adds up to 738 calories according to their Web site's nutrition info. For comparisons sake, their long-time favorite, the spicy chicken sandwich - with cheese - will ding you for 626 calories and the chipotle chicken ciabatta with the spicy crispy patty - with cheese AND bacon - will get you for 704 calories.

Just saw a commercial for the newest product coming from the minds of Carl's Jr. and there's nothing like going right after an icon.

Introducing the Big Carl.

Two all-beef patties, special sauce (Carl's), lettuce and two slices of cheese on a toasted sesame seed bun! No pickles, no onions, no piece of bread in between.

I don't see the need for Carl's to make this kind of move. What's the point? People already love your burgers (the Western is one of the best ever) and the Six-Dollar Burgers are well worth the extra change. I'm assuming that the price is less than McD's, so as to say, hey, we can do your signature better and cheaper than you, with less bread, even.

Even then, it's gonna hit you in the stomach. The Big Carl weighs in at a serving size of 315 grams, and will hit you at 920 calories - a whopping 530 from fat. The Mac, meanwhile, is 214 grams, and only 540 calories, 240 of which is fat.

You know, I'll give just about anything a try in the fast food arena.

But there has been one item that I have looked at at various places and said no way, no how. And I saw it offered at Del Taco for the first time the other day.

A chili cheese fries burrito.

I think I had seen it at Weinerschnitzel before that, and I just get the willies thinking about it. Fries, in a burrito? No thanks.

I know what you're thinking. "But, dude, it's just chili cheese fries in a convenient carrying device." Nope. Just not wrapping my head around it.

Mind you, put those in a tray and I'll eat 'em up. Heck, I liked the Taco Bell beef and potato burrito. And you know how many other places I've had tater tots in breakfast burritos and had no complaints?

Maybe it's just the idea of the texture of fries. They're supposed to have a decent crispy snap to them. And then you wrap them in a flour tortilla?

It must be a rather new thing they're trying out, because there's no nutritional info on their Web site for that bad boy.

Speaking of things I won't even dare try ...

The snack bar at the bowling alley I've been frequenting in Moreno Valley has something called the "Big Bowler" and they put a picture of it up so you don't have to use your imagination.

For $6, they'll give you a pound of meat (I've never been able to count the patties in the picture), five slices of cheese and "mucho veggies" between a bun. Even in their picture, the thing is leaning over from its sheer weight.

The first time I was there, I asked the woman working the counter how many of those things they sold a day? Maybe one I figured. Two tops, right?

"Oh, three or four."

Groan.

I'm assuming they're being shared by the adventurous teen set who come in on dates. But, man, just thinking about it makes my arteries harden.

That's the one form of food self abuse I've never really thrust upon myself - the ridiculously oversized fast food burger. I may have gotten a triple cheeseburger from McDonalds once (and, hey, it was McDonald's). I hear about people going to In n Out and getting a triple-triple or shudder a four-by-four and can't even fathom getting through one of those. The double-double (animal style, hold the dressing, thank you much) is plenty-plenty. And when I'm done with my meal from there, I always want more fries - not burger.

Oh, and speaking of quality you can taste, saw a story recently asking celebrity (and other famous) chefs what their favorite fast food place was ... the winner, In n Out.

Root, root, root for the OTHER team

Angels fans need to do a little extra rooting these days.

For the Texas Rangers.

Yes, I know that the Rangers are in the American League West, and them winning would put the Angels' lead in the division in jeopardy, but wait a second and follow me on this one.

Let's go back a year, and the Angels' 100-win season. That they had the division all-but wrapped up in, oh, late July. They were in cruise control for a good part of the season. The only thing they had to play for a long time was the quest for 100 wins and Francisco Rodriguez's save record.

That's no way to stay sharp, especially when you need to be at the top of your game in the playoffs.

So having Texas hang around will keep pressure on the Angels to win. While it seems nice to clinch the division early, it'll be good for this team to play meaningful games late in September.

But there's a bigger, more important reason for Angels fans to get behind Texas.

One word: Boston.

You don't want the Sawx anywhere near the city of Anaheim in October. No way. No how.

Home-field advantage? Throw it out the window. Better pitching staff? They have to do it in Fenway, something they haven't done. And the vaunted lineup? In the cold of October, again, in Fenway.

They can say whatever they want about it being a new year, or a new challenge, and that it won't get into their head.

Yeah, sure. After the 20th question about the Angels' woes in the playoffs against the Red Sox, and it will seep into the unconscious of any player.

And all the history will be dredged up ... again.

The way the standings are going, with 44 games or so to go, the Rangers and Sox are tied for the wild card. And it won't matter if the Angels have the best record over the Yankees if the Sox are the wild card. The two AL East teams can't play each other in the first round, so Boston will be shipped West to take out the Angels and make the east-coast media happy.

But if Texas can hang with Boston, and win the wild card, they'll get thrown to the Yankees, and the Angels will get the Central Division winner (which, if it's the other Sox, will be another painful problem for the Halos). But it would still be preferable to having to deal with the thousands of issues that come with having to play Boston -- again.

So, join me in rooting down the stretch for the Rangers to keep pace. And, it would be nice to throw a wrench in plans of Fox and the other baseball partners by having to go to Arlington in October, instead of their favorite of Fenway.

Is there a doctor in the house?

So, we're in the middle of another fight in America. Class and party lines have been drawn. All over who gets to see a doctor.

There's been much yelling and much misinformation thrown out from both sides. And it's getting old and tiresome. And it all smacks of sour grapes.

For six years the Bush administration pushed through just about every piece of legislation it wanted. Rip apart our freedoms? Sure. Go to war in Iraq to finish what Daddy started, when we probably should be in Afghanistan? Piece of cake. Open up laws that let Wall Street and major corporations run wild? Great!

So, now that the other side wants to make changes, why are they crying that the Democrats aren't listening?

Anyone who questioned the previous administration was labeled un-American. Un-patriotic. A Communist. And now as the White House asks for a quiet, civilized debate on health care, the other side is complaining that they're being stifled.

Really? Stifled? When everyone is letting you scream at the top of your lungs? After calling anyone who dared complain about the Bush administration a traitor? You really want to go there?

I don't think anyone's going to be able to stifle any of your arguments. All that was being asked was to know all the facts and to discuss your concerns in a civilized manner. Not to go out and spread misinformation about "death panels."

Is that really so much to ask?

MORE HEALTH CARE: One of the things that set me off on this rant was an image that flashed for all of a second during an opening montage on "Nightline" the other day.

Someone was holding a sign outside a town hall meeting that said "Health Care is NOT a right."

Um, OK? So, some person shows up at the hospital injured without insurance and the doctors can't treat them? A uninsured young woman with a baby on the way can't get pre-natal care which might help her or her child avoid costly treatments later (as long as she has it, that is)? And someone who isn't a doctor decides she can make that decision?

Sounds like someone's appointed themselves a one-person death panel.

EVEN MORE HEALTH CARE: I really don't know if what's been proposed is the right fit (I've only read what the White House spin masters have put out on the Web), but one thing is sure, we need some sort of reform

There are problems with the system. And I have what would be considered pretty good insurance.

But the argument I hear that drives me crazy is that they don't want to pay for any type of government insurance.

Again, um ... you already do. What do you think the tax money taken from your check goes to? And do you really think that plan will take more taxes away from people who are already struggling to pay their bills? No, I have a feeling it'll be those that are making the decision to lay off people to protect their bottom lines that will be hit the hardest.

Besides, it's not like most of us already don't pay for our own insurance (pre-tax, of course). I'm pretty sure I've never had an employer-sponsored health plan that was completely free to me in my adult life. I've always had to have money withdrawn each paycheck as part of the deal.

And the amount has steadily gone up year after year after year after ... To the point that I now have $214 per paycheck taken out to cover myself and my family for medical, dental and vision.

I can pretty much guarantee that it'll go up again this fall when we have open enrollment. And there's the chance that they may institute a rule that spouses who have insurance offered by their employers must use that, or pay an extra fee to continue on the current plan. Gina's former employer did that to us -- after my open enrollment ended. Luckily we were able to switch and not pay the fee.

More and more businesses are turning to their employees to help foot the health care bill. My mom has been at her job with ROP some 25 years now, and will have to pay for her insurance this fall for the first time (only $25 per month for an HMO that the family doctor won't accept or in the hundreds for a PPO).

EVEN MORE: The biggest problem with most of our health care decisions come down not to our health, but to our happiness and convenience.

Who really needs to have a four-hour erection thanks to a little blue pill? How many people knew that they "had to go" more than normal before they saw a commercial? And how many of our problems might just go away if we ate less and exercised more?

That's the key thing right there. Proper fitness, including diet. And I'm the perfect example.

A few years back, it was decided I had sleep apnea. This after the five-minute visit in the doctor's office and a sleep study where they hook you up with all kinds of wires and gadgets then tell you "Go to sleep, and try not to move too much, otherwise you'll knock the wires off." You're lucky you sleep at all.

Anyway, they made the determination and handed me the CPAP machine to help keep me breathing while I sleep. I remember showing up at the location to get the machine dreading having to get this thing. The person who was getting his at the same time ... well, not so much.

We sat down at this table, and the tech started pulling out our supplies. And for some reason, I got a humidifier with mine (my old HMO insurance paid for a lot of stuff). The other guy wasn't having that. He wanted to know where HIS extra pieces were, and WHY he wasn't getting them. I was kicking and screaming and he was diving in with both feet.

So, for some five years or so, I've had this machine. The insurance company paid for a new mask twice a year (until I moved to my current PPO, which counts it against my deductible ... grrr) and that was it.

Has it fixed the problem? Well, I don't snore or lose sleep any more. But if the mask is broken or was taken away from me, I would still toss and turn and snore my way through a restless night or two before it was replaced.

To fix it completely would include buy in from me. I need to lose weight. Stop eating junk food and exercise more and all that.

But wouldn't it be nice if we were able to take our insurance and use it in ways that would make us healthier. A stipend to pay for a gym. Easier access to nutritionists. A focus on preventative care that wasn't just a five minute physical and a pat on the back.

But that won't make insurance companies money. And that's why many of us would like some sort of reform. Turn the bottom lines from obscene profits that go to pay for executives to more coverage for more people.

WRAPPING IT UP: I know the idea of universal health care is still a pipe dream in this country. It's an almost unreachable ideal.

But why can't we? What's stopping us? I keep hearing we're the greatest country in the world with the greatest economy in the world (a local representative said as much recently). But we haven't figure out a way to take care for every citizen yet? There are still women who can't get pre-natal care? There are still senior citizens who cut their medication in half to make it last? Or the people who have jobs who can't even afford basic dental care?

I think we should be able to figure it out somehow. Shouldn't we all find a way to help our fellow human beings? Because no matter how much money or fame you have, it's not going with you.

Thursday's Random Thoughts

GET YOUR (GENERAL) MOTORS RUNNING: It's so rare when our government does something that seems to work for everyone.
The Cash for Clunkers program may prove to be one of the best programs for the masses that has ever come out of Washington. But as it is being hailed as a huge success, it leaves me with one question: Why didn't they tie the program into the stimulus packages for the automakers?
I know that the bill was originally proposed by California's Dianne Feinstein (and others) to get inefficient cars off the road. But with all the screaming about why didn't we just let the automakers fail, why didn't we let the market decide and stimulate the economy at the same time?
Because, let's look at it. People are able to get new cars that will save them money. The car companies get more money pumped into their books, and allow them to keep running for a few months. And the government looks like it's doing something to help everyone. Every one's happy.
What gets me is that people are almost surprised by how much of a success the program has been.
Did they think people were going to turn down free money for a new car? Did they think everyone wants to continue driving their old gas guzzler?
So, Congress, getting ready for their month vacation (when's the last time you had a month vacation?), had to hurry and pass legislation to keep the program running. Because, you know, there's more people out there who want to have fuel-efficient cars and are willing to get into debt for a few years.
I love that the Senate was sitting around wringing its hands about extending the program. I realize they have many things to consider when passing a bill that's going to give away $2 billion more, but when the will of the people is screaming, don't you listen?
Of course, considering my car situation, I was looking forward to possibly taking advantage of the program. But it won't happen.
To have your car qualify, they use the government's fuel mileage standards. And my 1995 Chevy S-10, with 240,000-plus miles on it, still gets more than 20 miles per gallon, according to their calculations (and yeah, it's pretty close to that, so I can't complain).
So, instead of getting a new car, I'm putting more money into keeping my car running. And I don't mind, especially if it's able to hold on for a few more months. We only have a small amount left to pay on our other car, and once that's done, it'll give us time to pay off our other debts and allow us to save for a new car when we're ready.

TEAM AMERICA: President Bill Clinton's mission to North Korea was a success. He brought home the two American journalists who were being jailed there. Happy ending to a story that hit pretty close to home for those of us still plying the trade.
Can't we just leave it at that?
Why do we need to read subtext into it? Why can't we just be happy that two women, who's only "crime" may have been walking a few yards too far across the China/North Korea border, have been returned home to their families?
Nooooo. Couldn't just leave it at that.
OK, we get it. Kim Jong Il gets to look like a hero to the world, with Bill Clinton sitting and smiling next to him. Gee, he did something right and we're supposed to be upset for the reasons he did it?
And Clinton? The man is a politician, and he's good at it. If we were talking about politics in sports terms, he'd be a first-ballot Hall of Famer ... and not just because he was President.
The man talks circles around the issues. He's got that perfect politician smile. You know, the one that says "I love y'all, and y'all love me, but y'all ain't gonna believe it when I raise your taxes." Anyone who can argue about how to define the word "is" ... what can you call them but politician?
So, think what you want, but the man was just playing his game. And not very many people play it as well as he does. He came home with the prize without compromising President Barack Obama or any other policy (that we know of).

99 MEMORIES: This week's Kings Classic was actually a game I attended ... Wayne Gretzky's first game as a Kings, way back in 1988. And it conjured up some good memories, from Roy Orbison singing the National Anthem to the place practically exploding when No. 99 scored the Kings' first goal.
But one thing that stood out from rewatching that game: The fans singing the "Na Na Hey Hey" to the Red Wings with five minutes remaining. In a regular season game. The FIRST regular season game.
Used to be us Kings fans would sing that near the end of every home game. Then, somewhere along the line, it morphed to only when the Kings were going to win a playoff series. Now, it's gone.
Admittedly, there hasn't been much chance to sing it lately for the Kings. But beyond LA, I really don't hear it as much in hockey arenas any more. Did we get tired of taunting opponents? Or are we trying to be good sports?
Who knows the answer to that one. But maybe us Kings fans will get a reason to sing it next year. Ah, one can dream.

The Father-in-Law Problem

When I started writing this post, it was going to detail our vacation and the travails of traveling with at 2-year-old who doesn't know better and a 72-year-old who just doesn't care.
But the more I wrote, the more it rambled and the longer it got. And really, I could go into every detail of dealing with Gina's dad on the trip and it would've never gotten to the point.
The point being that while his mother, who turned 100 on our trip, is a woman who is old, Gina's dad is a guano-crazy Old Man.
The problem is, in reality, that he isn't really crazy. He just likes playing with people.
And it's gotten him trouble now. And by extension, us too.
His doctor has diagnosed him with dementia caused by Alzheimer's. And the doctor thinks Gina's dad belongs in a home - to the point that he's searched and found one that will take him and his insurance.
Dementia, we buy. He has massive anxieties that cause him to act irrationally. He has delusions that he's still a virile young man who should be desired (or, at the very least, *ahem* serviced).
But the Alzheimer's? We're not so sure. He is still pretty sharp, especially when it comes to the way he lays down the guilt, weasels the things he wants or doles out the verbal punishment for anyone who dares cross him.
The doctor based his opinion on a couple of encounters with Gina's dad at appointments, and by the fact that he won't take care of himself.
The first encounter came one day when Gina's dad rode his four-wheel scooter to the appointment, when his county-paid-for caregiver was supposed to bring him. When they asked where the caregiver was, and how he got there, he lied rather than face the scorn.
The second came when Gina's sister came with him to another appointment. Being sort of polite, he reintroduced Gina's sister to the doctor by saying, you remember my daughter? Gina's sister heard the doctor's response under his breath "He doesn't remember he's introduced her."
And not taking care of himself? That's nothing new. He's never taken care of himself. He's always had someone around who could do it. Gina's mom endured years of verbal and physical abuse and stayed to help take care of him until her dying days. His gratitude: One visit to the hospital in her final two weeks.
Since her death, he's had his share of people who have pitched in to help, from family to friends to government agencies. It finally got to the point that he got the caretakers who were to help cook and clean and take care of him for the past year-plus. Well, until just before we left.
Just before we left, his latest caretaker quit. Of Mexican descent, she couldn't take the racist she was caring for (oh, he hates the Mexicans - never mind his granddaughter is half-Mexican). Or the sexual harassment he was doling out. I told you he still believed himself to be a virile stud - he has porn scattered around his bedroom.
But most recently, he's had Gina's sister, who moved in to help her stem the financial tide in her life. He's leaned on her, using her so much, it's not fair to her, her husband or their 8-month-old daughter. So, they're getting ready to move out, and he's upset.
He's on a bevy of medications, and he knows what he's supposed to take and when. He handled all of them while on the trip to Costa Rica. But because he never took care of himself after having bypass surgery to clear clots in his legs, he's back to the point he was before the surgery - hurting and having troubles walking (he moved like a glacier when he did walk). I would bet he's in danger of losing his feet at some point as well.
Which leaves us in a quagmire. What do we do? The way I see it, there are four options.
1) We take the doctor's advice and we put him in the home.
There are days when I've had enough and I'm ready just to do it. But in our hearts, we know it's not right. He's still sharp enough to get himself around. At one point, the doctor had enough and signed him into the psych ward of the hospital on a three-day mandatory hold. That scared him some, because the people in there were actually insane.
But it didn't scare him enough that he started following the doctor's advice, which leaves the doctor positive he can't be trusted (he can't) to take care of himself and needs to be in this Alzheimer's specialty home. We worry, though, that being trapped there will lead to his death sooner rather than later.
2) We get him into a private senior living home that will give him freedom, but also have staff around in case.
This option is probably the right one ... but how? Most of those won't take his state or federal insurance (that is if the state hasn't already cut it).
And lets look at the finances of his kids. Well, there's Gina and I, two journalists who had their pay cut and have a 2-year-old. His other daughter, who has the young baby and a stepdaughter to take care of every other weekend, and who's husband has been looking for work. And there's his son, the bouncer at the strip club, who's trying to go to culinary school and better his life.
Not a lot of extra money floating around. Especially when in that environment, we think he'd thrive and live a lot longer.
3) We ship him off to Costa Rica.
Most of his family is still there, and have told us not to worry, they would look after him. He likely would thrive having all the family around him. Being back there would probably be good for him, as well, because it wouldn't cost him much to live.
But, if he went, he'd probably lose all the Social Security he gets now (admittedly, it's not that much, but it's enough he'd freak out about it) and any of the other government help he gets.
And then there's his kids. It's not like any of us can drop everything at a moment's notice and get to Costa Rica (see: finances) if something were to go wrong. Though, if we're to believe him, when he does die, there's a huge inheritance waiting in Costa Rica. We just have to go get it.
4) The last option is just to leave things the way they are.
Gina's sister is moving out, in part, to help him. If she's there when the county housing inspectors come, he'll lose some of his housing help. And lord knows, in this state, they'll be looking at everything to make cuts.
But once she's gone, she won't be there at his beck and call. We're out in Colton (with Gina working another hour out in Palm Springs). And Gina's brother can't/won't pitch in because of a lot of issues between the two.
So, this is our problem. Piling on top of all our other problems. We run through each of these scenarios and their pros and cons and never come to a viable conclusion (because winning the lottery isn't one - and lord knows Gina's dad tried to gamble his way to prosperity many times).
What to do? *Shrug* Got me. I'm looking for suggestions. Got any?

Summer Puckin'

So, there has been one consistent good thing about being off Tuesdays this summer.
Kings hockey.
Prime Ticket, in need of filler programming, spends Tuesday night showing classic hockey (yes, including the Ducks), and it's a nice respite from the rest of the stuff on television.
This past Tuesday's Kings game was Game 6 from the 1990 playoffs, when the Kings knocked off the Calgary Flames in double overtime. Mike Krushelnyski's goal from his backside is still as classic now as it was then.
But watching, there were quite a few things that stood out.
First off, this was a pre-Ducks world. Which means that many of my friends who are now Ducks fans probably didn't watch that game. And probably didn't watch any hockey. It's a good thing Gretzky and the Kings were good enough to make enough runs deep into the playoffs proving hockey was viable in Southern California.
Second, you realize how much the game has changed. There were muggings on the ice that weren't called by the one referee. Calgary gave the Kings 10 power plays in the game, and that's not counting all the interference penalties that would be called today.
Seriously, the game was skating north-south, with defensemen carrying the puck into the zone, with very little dump and chase. Filled with players interfering every time the puck came within five yards of them. Oh, and even worse, was the times when players were actually dragged down with no penalty called.
And Gary Roberts of the Flames absolutely lost his mind at the end of regulation. He didn't like getting called for a penalty, and he pushed over another King as he argued. And he argued. And argued all the way to the penalty box. In today's game, he probably would have picked up another two minutes and probably a 10 minute misconduct.
Oh, and in today's game, the Kings probably would have lost the game. The apparent Calgary goal in the first overtime might have been upheld with the use of video replay, especially with all the extra camera angles that are available these days. The angles they had available on the Prime Ticket broadcast in 1990 could not conclusively make the call, but I bet they could've today.
That game, by the way, I remember watching live. I was still living at my parents house (I was less than a year out of high school at that point), sitting in the same space on the couch I always did when I watched Kings games (superstitious much?). It was the Saturday before Easter, and the game ended just after midnight on Easter Sunday. And I was celebrating the win while trying not to be too loud as to wake up the rest of the family.
Watching the games has been a nice holdover to the real hockey season. Especially since I can watch the games without the stress of wondering if they're going to play well enough to win (because as Bob Miller said during the studio parts of the broadcasts, they're not going to show a Kings' loss during Kings Classics).
And just think, training camp is a little more than a month away.