The Buzzer-Beater

As we sit in the Columbus area on a Sunday night and wait for the next snow storm to hit, there’s no reason we shouldn’t watch Aaron Craft’s last-second dagger against Iowa State again . . . and again.

The Buckeyes are off to the Sweet Sixteen for the fourth time in four years.  Great job, Thad Matta, and great job, Buckeyes.  Los Angeles, here we come!

Advertisements

The Baby-Faced Assassin

Thanks to Aaron Craft, the Ohio State Buckeyes have survived and advanced, and my heart rate has just about returned to something approaching its normal rhythm.

IMG_3101What a great game this was, and what an impossible game to watch if you were a fan of either team!  Iowa State had the advantage early, and the Buckeyes clawed their way back.  Ohio State took control in the second half, Iowa State counterpunched, and then the Buckeyes rolled out to a big lead.  But then, it was Iowa State’s turn.  They made incredibly tough threes, erased a 13-point Buckeye lead in the blink of an eye, and left me and every member of Buckeye Nation shaking our heads at an epic collapse.  But Aaron Craft, who had missed the front ends of two one-and-ones to expedite Iowa State’s comeback, wouldn’t give up.  He made the big plays down the stretch and then, with the final seconds ticking away, swished a three-pointer to put the game on ice for the Buckeyes.

Kudos to Aaron Craft — the baby-faced assassin — and Deshaun Thomas and LaQuinton Ross, all of whom made big shots in the second half.  And kudos, too, to the Iowa State Cyclones, who were tough, dogged, and determined not to give up.  I’m glad the Buckeyes won, of course, but I have a huge amount of respect for Iowa State and their classy coach.  Great game, Cyclones!  I hope you will turn out to be the toughest team the Buckeyes have to play, because I don’t think Ohio State — or its fans — could survive a tougher game than this one.

The Penny Chronicles

My name is Penny.

IMG_3433When I wake up in the morning, I am hungry and want to eat.  I mean, right away.  Why not?  I am hungry!

Usually, that is not a problem.  The old boring guy gets up early, feeds me and Kasey, and then takes us on a long, boring walk.  The boring walk with the old boring guy is the price we pay for a full belly.

Sometimes the old boring guy doesn’t get up early.  I’m not sure why.  On those days, I have to wake him up to get my food.  So, I use the flap.  The flap is when I twirl my head very fast.  When I do that, my ears flap against my head and make a slapping sound, and my collar jingles.  If one flap doesn’t work, I do it again.  And again.  And again.  Then Kasey will do the flap, too. No one can sleep for long when two dogs are doing the flap!

We’ll keep doing the flap until the old boring guy gets up and gives us our food.  Sorry, old boring guy!  Time to rise and shine, because we are hungry!

In Line For History

Usually, we associate people camped out in lines for days with hot rock concerts, or huge basketball games, or Black Friday special sales.  In Washington, D.C., however, people have been waiting in line since Friday for seats to watch the U.S. Supreme Court.

This week, the Court will hear argument on two cases that may — and I emphasize may — resolve the constitutional status of same-sex marriage.  On Tuesday, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court will address Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that California voters passed in 2008.  On Wednesday, in United States v. Windsor, the Court will examine the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 statute that prevents same-sex couples from enjoying benefits, such as filing joint tax returns, that are available to “traditional” married couples.

Proponents of gay marriage hope the Court will use the cases to declare that different treatment of same-sex marriages violates the equal protection clauses of the Constitution.  As is often the case with Supreme Court cases, however, procedural issues may be decisive.  In the California case, a threshold issue is whether the conservative groups seeking to defend Proposition 8 have legal “standing” to do so, which will require the Court to consider whether the groups have a real stake in the outcome or are officious intermeddlers who won’t be personally affected by resolution of the dispute.  Another key question is which “standard of review” the Court should apply, with much tougher scrutiny being given, for example, to laws that discriminate on the basis of race than to laws that simply regulate economic activity.  The Obama Administration is urging the Court to apply a heightened level of scrutiny to laws that address gender orientation.

Lurking below are the “big picture” notions that only the Supreme Court can truly consider.  Should the Constitution be read strictly, according to “original intent” and the social mores that prevailed at the time its amendments were adopted, or is it a more flexible document that can evolve to encompass cultural changes?  If the latter approach is taken, how do you keep the Constitution from being read with such elasticity that it loses any intrinsic meaning and simply becomes whatever a majority of nine justices might declare?  And if you conclude that the Constitution does protect “gender orientation,” can you write your opinion in a way that would allow courts and legislators to draw principled distinctions between same-sex marriage and other forms of personal commitment between consenting adults — such as polygamy?  Often the Court decides cases narrowly precisely to avoid have to address these kinds of broad and difficult questions.

There’s a reason people are willing to endure days of the blustery late-March weather in Washington, D.C. to get a seat for these arguments.  This week, history will be made in the solemn Supreme Court oral argument chamber.