The Dream Has Transmuted

Boston has lost one of its greatest heroes - an incomparable heroine from the sombre seventies that saw its Sox slumber, its Bruins get bruised egos, its Celtics come off their pedestal and its Patriots peter out.

Through it all - we felt love nonetheless: the love of and for a great diva who was the one, true Queen of Disco: Donna Summer. She made everything right for everyone who listened to her, through thick or thin. She made it all right with her soothing voice, her melodic rhythms, her divine aura.

Her dream is not over - no matter what our eyes may be telling us, it is not that at all. Her dream continues: in fact, it has truly taken off now. It has transmuted into something greater than mere hopes of a better tomorrow, of championships, of bliss, of so many diverse delusions of grandeur. It has, in fact, gone onto another level entirely; one of greater consciousness and of a true awakened state.

This Dream is Forever.

Donna Summer has passed on.

She feels love more than ever now.
Sing on in the Heavens, Disco Diva+++
Thank you for all the music - for all the love.

Bostonian FB

Facebook met with over 200 Boston investors today. Boston attendees said an IPO hasn't drawn such a crowd since Blackstone went public in 2007, reports CNBC's Kayla Tausche. Caution appears to be the word...

The Facebook game face offered to investors first in New York and now Boston is indeed very reassuring as well as self-assured, despite the steady decline of its shares ever since they were made public... Makes one wonder if the Zuckerberg Wunderkind is not more like an iceberg-to-a-Titanic after all - but let's not get so somber straight away here...

For the program offered to all of these investors, here and over there, reeked of positivism and enthusiasm. Questions raged right after the FB-WZP (Wunderkind Zuckerberg Presentation), however; questions and doubts over the growing research and development facets, as many believe it has already peaked as it is. And it most probably has indeed... And what if FB was only a fad that has already peaked as well? What then - what now? And what to do for the future of this thing, especially if you are one of those lucky shareholders already. There are so many concerns over the feasibility and viability of ongoing operations in China as well as the overall relevancy of the ad selection - and ads are paramount to Facebook's success as it is its true source of revenue. For, otherwise, what can FB do, really? Charge its users per amounts of ''likes'' that they give out...?  Tax everyone with 200 and more friends...? Ask for a special anomymity fee from every one of their users who are so obviously using the service under a false identity...! Okay now - let's not give them any ideas...

Ultimately, Boston investors, shrewd and wise as they are, voiced their internal interrogations whether Facebook, despite all the hoopla and its over one billion users as we, er, blog, well, is it to be profitable in the long term or are we talking about the dreaded ''profit at a cost'' scenario here? 'Tis would be, truly, an all-too familiar sorry sight for Bostonians eager to jump in and invest in this venture, as the old syndrome of ''addition through substraction'' has plagued so many Boston-based businesses throughout the decades... But we will not get into that here and now...

As long as Bostonian investors remain smart-alecky as they've always been known to be, don't jump on any bandwagon and do not succumb as so many others (hailing from NYC, for example - NYC and other purported-to-be ''trendy centers'' of attraction for whatsnot...!) there should be nothing to fear here, in good old Beantown - whether FB sinks ever further or finally halts its descent but remains widely sub-par in its performance, in the eyes of the Zuckerberg fanatics exclusively...

History Repeating - Or A Missed Chance For Retribution

Well, comments are fusing all over them message boards and assorted forums - because every hockey fan has an opinion... because every hockey fan carries a stick -or a stake- through their heart...? Because it is all for that darn cup...!  But let's see past all that right now and read some of those opinions, shall we...? Like Dougie here (not Hamilton) ...

Do you really think Lucic wanted it more when he turned the puck over that lead to the first goal in game 7?

Did you think Seguin wanted it when he was invisible during games 1,2,3,4,5?
Do you think Thomas wanted it when he didn't even bother to argue the last goal for goalie interference to at least have a review?

I'm a B's fan but you need to take the blinders off, Buddy

- Doug Mitchell5 days ago

So the Bruins were tired of all these shenanigans - and just wanted to win under their own terms, or have a break from it all. Obviously, they got a break from it all now.

But speaking of goalie interference...
I am not alone in this, I know it: all true Boston Bruins fans, either longtime followers or with a flair for history, know what the title of this post is hinting at... 

For the Boston Bruins and Washington Capitals have some sort of history already - not as storied as, say, what the Bruins share with the Canadiens, Sabres or Flyers - but it is getting there now...! 

Ironically, two Timmys are involved in this, too... Is it something refs have against Timmys or Boston? Don't answer that, please...

In the early 1990s, the Boston Bruins swept the Washington Capitals out of the playoffs, winning their easiest Wales Conference Finals EVER (the former name of what is now simply called the Eastern Conference!) taking it 4-0.  Cam Neely was leading the team on the ice back then - rather than in the front office as the team's president, he was their top sniper. Mike Liut was the Capitals goaltender - overwhelmed as he should be, just as Braden Holtby (probably the last time anyone sees this guy's name prominently discussed anywhere...! But that's another story...) would have been oh-so-very-overwhelmed if his defense wasn't blocking every shot they could, robbing the Bruins of so many goals in the process... Thanks for that, Dennis ''The Menace'' Wideman - traitor!  But that's another story, too...

It wouldn't be until the very late years of the 20th Century that these two teams would meet again: in the years where the Boston Bruins were finally beginning to reap some of the rewards of their rebuilding process, their youth movement, which had been initiated when Cam Neely retired and Ray Bourque had been traded away, for his two years in Colorado because, basically, he couldn't wait until 2011 to win his Stanley Cup...!

And so, in the late 1990's, the upstart Boston Bruins, a good young team then, full of promise, led by veteran coach Pat Burns and truly led, on the ice, by burgeoning talent (Joe Thornton) and grit (Tim Taylor) matched up well with the Capitals from that year, who were an older, more experienced bunch, overall... 

The Boston Bruins should have won that series, too - but a decision in the very first game of the series, in overtime, in favor of the Crapitals, changed the course of the entire thing.  There was this rule, see? A version of said rule still exists today: and it could have, should have been invoked in the overtime instance in Game 7, April 25th 2012...  Apparently, back then as now, goaltenders should not be interfered with in the performance of their duties. Back in 1998, they took it so seriously that there was a ''crease rule'' making it so that it was forbidden to stand in the crease and interfere with the goaltender. 

The inane, witless referees were apparently unaware that they were meant to interpret these obtuse rules - adapt them to each and every situation that came up.  What they certainly were NOT supposed to do was simply apply them, to the letter, without any other consideration for the actual circumstances before them...!  You are referees, for crying out loud, men: you are not robots! Use your senses, your judgement, your brains!!! But they did not - not in the first round of the 1998 NHL playoffs, at any rate...

And so there came overtime, again, between the Bruins and Capitals teams. 
The Bruins score. The Bruins win - right? 
Wrong. 
The neanderthal ref chooses to apply the rules to the letter indeed - and he estimates that Bruins forward Tim 'Toolman' Taylor was standing in the crease, therefore interfering in some way, and the goal is disallowed. The perfectly good, valid, legal goal is declared invalid and is disallowed. 
And the stunned Bruins can barely swallow this and regroup - while the Capitals, joyfully and wistfully, take advantage of their second life and press the attack - scoring a flukey goal down the other end to steal the game. Because that's the way it goes, in the NHL. Because that's the way it is in hockey. Because it's the cup...? Never mind that darn thing right now...

The Capitals stole the momentum of that series right there. The Bruins of that time tried to deny that this reversal of fortune had affected them - but how could it have not affected them? The series was close - closer than the 1990 series, that is for sure; but not as close as this 2012 encounter, no - but it ended 4-2 in favor of the Capitals who then lost 4-0 again... but in the Stanley Cup Finals this time, opposite Detroit.

Now you see where I'm getting at here...? 

The NHL refs had a chance to redeem themselves by calling off that so-called goal in this year's Game 7 overtime; as they still owe the Bruins that goal from 1998...! Former referee Kerry Fraser declared it himself:  Joel Ward's so-called goal should have been disallowed - just like the Boston goal in that 1998 overtime should have NOT been disallowed! Why didn't you do it, refs - disallow the Crapital goal and let us see then how the Crapitals react to having it done to them, for once...! But they didn't do that: instead, the refs didn't even ask for the replay, for verification from the booth, nothing!  Granted, neither did the Bruins, but the fact remains that that is twice now that the refs cost the Bruins victory against that very same adversary, quite ironically - and, at this point, we can imagine that very same adversary will only pay the price of this infamy on ice by losing disgracefully in the Finals again - or semi-finals. 

Pat Burns is still haunted by this, in the Great Beyond - I hope he haunts all NHL refs involved, undiscriminatively - unless he has better things to do where he is now, of course...  Tim The Toolman Taylor is still unavenged here and unable to feel like something other than some sort of ice-bound version of Bill Buckner...!  And the NHL still offers the overall semblance of a bush league with retarded rules and the officiating that goes with that... it truly is no wonder it gets so much criticism on its very own message boards, over at nhl.com there...

Some other fan, on the very same NHL.COM commentary boards, boasted that it was twice now, rather, that these two teams meet - and the winner gets to go all the way to the Cup Finals afterwards. Being a Crapitals fan, the fanboy hopes the trend continues now. Well, first off, there are some trends that you want no part of, really (just ask the Flyers) and secondly, as I just mentioned, the last time your Crapitals got there, they were outclassed and soundly defeated in four straight. There's no reason to believe that 2012 can be any different from 1998. (''Believe'' - that's the Bruins' mantra, from last year! We're not lending it to you guys - you got two freebies off of us already; no more!) As for it being any sort of a ''trend'' - well, back in 1990, when the Boston Bruins destroyed you in four straight in order to access the Stanley Cup finals for the second time in three years, they met the Edmonton Oilers once there (again) and ran out of steam and firepower to lose to them in five games. Alas. So, if there is a trend, the trend would be this: Boston and Washington meet and then the winner goes on to lose in the Finals. That's not much of a trend, really, I'm telling you; you can skip that. To lose in the Finals is twice as disappointing as to lose in the first or second round: ask the Vancouver Canucks. Just remember the feeling back in 1998. The best thing I can wish you, Washington fans, is to lose quickly now and be done before it hurts all the more, for getting closer and closer and having it ultimately taken away - either by stupid rules or obtuse refs - is the worst thing of all.  You are an overachiever, at this point in time: you do not have the team to win it all: neither the goalie nor the coach that should or can go all the way. You were just lucky.

If the deciding goal had been unequivocally good - I would have no problem at all tipping my hat to the Caps (a hat - not a baseball cap either) and wishing them good luck as well in the next round: for it is a feather in our cap if we lose to the eventual finalist rather than just some other team that just barely qualified for the off-season...! However, as it is, both times will always have an asterisk next to the result in my book - the only book and stats that count, because, well, this is my blog! Because I wrote so! Because it's for the damn cup, again...?!?  Anyway - the facts are there: the only decisive and unanimous decision therefore was in 1990 when it was Boston Bruins 4, Washington Capitals 0...

Losing twice in the first round to a loser - both times by a fluke - well, the Boston Bruins can regroup from that! I wonder if you can regroup, though, after advancing unworthily -again- only to flounder all over the place - yet again. (You didn't get the nickname ''Crapitals'' by chance, and you know it! It is just waiting to happen - yet again!)

Just watch the Bruins regroup and go, later this year - in October and beyond...!
;-)


Many thanks and full acknowledgement to Hockey Reference.com - with the highest regards too!
Thanks also to HFBoards.com - you're cool, too!