In South Carolina, the congressman and presidential candidate takes off after his fellow Republicans. Read the flier here.
I’ve been saying for a while that I’m not taking the Rick Santorum surge seriously — but on “Now with Alex Wagner” last week, Steve Kornacki predicted the Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado contests would be big for Santorum, and I’ve got to give him credit there.
One part of my Santorum skepticism is I can’t believe even GOP primary voters will nominate a guy who’s running for Pope, not POTUS. His extremism on contraception and his backward views about family life can’t even make sense to Republicans, half of whom supported President Obama’s contraception-coverage mandate in the latest New York Times/CBS poll, v. 44 percent who disapprove.
The other factor in my dismissing Santorum is that I’ve assumed Romney’s money would demolish Santorum the way it did Gingrich. And it may yet. But if Wednesday marked the opening of Romney’s scorched-earth campaign against Santorum, it didn’t scorch anything.
Romney’s anti-Santorum ads are weak tea, compared with his ads against Gingrich. I even went to Rickfacts.com to find the outrages behind the ads. There aren’t any. Maybe Tea Party voters can get exercised over Santorum’s support for earmarks, raising the debt ceiling and other government spending, but I sort of doubt it. The worst thing Romney’s got on him is that he voted to restore the voting rights of certain felons, along with Hillary Clinton, in 2003. That makes me like Santorum a little bit, which I’m sure is a sign it will appall the Tea Party. Still, Clinton isn’t as polarizing as Nancy Pelosi, who relishes her role in bringing Gingrich down with that cozy, couch-sitting climate change ad. Romney’s new barrage makes me wonder if maybe, there isn’t that much material to use trashing Santorum. Or at least not much that Romney can use.
The Obama campaign would have endless material, should Santorum survive the Romney contest. But the former Massachusetts governor can’t attack Santorum’s extremism, because on most social issues he’s gone out and joined him over on the far right. Now, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough says Romney folks are quietly behind several new media revelations about Santorum’s contraception extremism. But Romney can’t blast him in ads when he’s trying to join his side in the culture wars.
On “Hardball” today, former Mike Huckabee campaign manager Chip Saltsman advised Romney to be himself, to run on his record – as a family man, a business man, a governor, and the head of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. But I don’t think it’s that easy. Romney and Santorum both have big, lovely-looking families. That’s a draw. He tried to run on his record as a “job creator” and business maven at Bain Capital, but it turns out he was also a job destroyer and his Bain role is part of what makes him the face of the top 1 percent. Attention to Romney’s business record was actually disastrous for him.
Of course, his record as the Republican governor of a blue state, who paved the way in providing universal health insurance and accommodated Massachusetts liberalism on reproductive health, might really help him in a match with Obama, if he gets there. But he’s abandoned most of the positions that might attract independents and speak to his ability to get beyond the partisan gridlock everyone supposedly hates – a pitch that worked for a first-term senator from Illinois in 2008. Besides, that wouldn’t be much help during the primaries, anyway.
Worst of all, his Michigan roots were supposed to make that state’s primary a cakewalk. But unbelievably – or not – Santorum’s now ahead there, too. Romney bet wrong when he declared in a 2008 New York Times op-ed that the president should let the auto industries go bankrupt, and he’s paying for it now (despite ridiculous attempts to spin what Obama did as somehow derived from his advice.) And in a sentimental ad about his Detroit roots, it turns out Romney is riding in a Chrysler manufactured in Canada. The guy can’t fake authenticity no matter how hard he tries.
So all the former front-runner’s really got is his money to smear his opponents (I’m sorry I used the term “smear Santorum” on television tonight. It won’t happen again.) But his first barrage at Santorum won’t do much damage. In fact, Santorum released a surprisingly funny (normally funny and Santorum don’t mix) ad attacking “Rombo” for his well-funded mudslinging. It’s all in the video, below. I still think Romney is the candidate to beat, given his war chest and Santorum’s spare campaign, but he’s going to ride some tough road in his Canadian-manufactured Chrysler in the weeks to come.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Edmund Collein: (Vorkurs Studierende Bauatelier Gropius, Winter Semester / Preliminary Course Students, Walter Gropius' Studio, Winter Semester), about 1927 - 1928. Gelatin silver print, 2 7/8 x 4 3/16 in. © Ursula Kirsten-Collein, Berlin. (Credit: The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles.)

T. Lux Feininger: Metalltanz, about 1928 - 1929. Gelatin silver print, 4 1/4 x 5 5/8 in. © estate of T. Lux Feininger. Credit: The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles.
Those wild and crazy Bauhaus boys and girls, with their improv jazz band and beach antics and clownish poses. They weren’t just dedicated students at what was probably the most influential design school in the 20th century. They were also partying hearty in 1920s Germany… before Fascism put a brutal end to this hotbed of creative innovation.
Virginia Heckert, curator of photographs at the J. Paul Getty Museum, put together a selection of photos by Bauhaus masters and students as a companion to Lyonel Feininger: Photographs 1928 – 1939, on view at the Getty through March 11.
This is my second column on the Getty’s Feininger exhibition. You’ll find part one, my interview with Feininger: Photographs curator Laura Muir, here.

T. Lux Feininger: (Bauhaus Band performing), about 1928 - 1929. Gelatin silver print, 4 9/16 x 6 1/16 in. © estate of T. Lux Feininger. Credit: The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles.
What feedback have you gotten to the student photos?
People have been very pleased to see the student images. Although they may have been made with somewhat modest intentions – basically as snapshots of the student experience at art school – these photographs have, over time and because of the legacy of this particular art school, become important historical documents that convey so wonderfully the atmosphere of creativity, inventiveness and energy that permeated life at the Bauhaus.

Edmund Collein: (Vorkurs Studierende Bauatelier Gropius, Winter Semester / Preliminary Course Students, Walter Gropius' Studio, Winter Semester), about 1927 - 1928. Gelatin silver print, 2 7/8 x 4 3/16 in. © Ursula Kirsten-Collein, Berlin. Credit: The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles.
What’s the background of these photos?
While the Getty Museum may not have found the appropriate opportunity in the past to exhibit these small treasures from our collection, since they were acquired primarily in 1984 and 1985, photographs of this kind are very well known. From the beginning, they’ve been used to convey the program of study and the atmosphere of daily life and leisure at the Bauhaus, and to exemplify Bauhaus master László Moholy-Nagy’s notion of the “new vision” made possible by the modern medium of photography. Virtually every publication on the Bauhaus uses photographs made by students and instructors to convey the uniqueness of life and study at the Bauhaus, particularly during the Dessau years, when the building that founding director Walter Gropius designed further shaped and embodied his notion of merging the fine and applied arts.
Among some of the exhibitions with accompanying catalogs that have incorporated student photographs into a recounting of the legacy of the Bauhaus are Bauhaus, 1919-1928, organized by Museum of Modern Art in 1938; Photography at the Bauhaus, organized by the Bauhaus-Archiv, Berlin, in 1990; and Bauhaus 1919-1933: Workshops for Modernity, organized by the Museum of Modern Art in 2009.
While the Getty Museum has often lent photographs from its collection to exhibitions dealing with European Modernism during the interwar years – most recently to The Mad Square: Modernity in German Art, 1910-1937, organized last year by the Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney – our decision to host the groundbreaking exhibition of Lyonel Feininger’s photographs organized by the Busch-Reisinger Museum provided the ideal opportunity to feature some 90 photographs from our collection to create a context to better understand why this important artist, who is otherwise known as a painter, printmaker and caricaturist, was drawn to photography as well.

Irene Bayer-Hecht: (Bauhaus Students at the Beach), about 1926. Gelatin silver print, 2 15/16 x 2 1/8 in. Credit: The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles.
In what ways have these works altered perceptions of campus life back then?
These photographs have come to define how we understand life on the Bauhaus campus, and how the atmosphere of creativity, innovation and spontaneity that permeated daily life also helped to inform similar attitudes in student projects and assignments.

Walter Peterhans: (Composition with Nine Glasses and Decanter), 1929 - 1933. Gelatin silver print, 9 1/16 x 6 5/16 in. © Estate Walter Peterhans, Museum Folkwang, Essen. Credit: The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles.
And what might today’s students learn from these photos?
To give one example, I find it fascinating to see that many of the male students dressed in three-piece suits and bow ties, a style of dress that is very different 90 years later, when students may prefer jeans and a T-shirt. This underscores the continued emphasis on personal style as an expression of individual identity.
Beyond an observation such as this, I find it most compelling to absorb the spirit of camaraderie and complete immersion that these young people exude as they embark upon a program of study in anticipation of life as creative professionals. That spirit permeates time spent in class and at leisure, suggesting a fluidity between work and play that is tremendously appealing.

Werner Zimmermann: In Der Werkstatt, about 1929. Gelatin silver print, 3 1/8 x 4 5/16 in. Credit: The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles.

Lucia Moholy: (Southern View of Newly Completed Bauhaus, Dessau), 1926. Gelatin silver print, 2 1/4 x 3 3/16 in. © 2011 Artists Rights Society, New York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn. Credit: The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles.
Copyright F+W Media Inc. 2012.
Salon is proud to feature content from Imprint, the fastest-growing design community on the web. Brought to you by Print magazine, America’s oldest and most trusted design voice, Imprint features some of the biggest names in the industry covering visual culture from every angle. Imprint advances and expands the design conversation, providing fresh daily content to the community (and now to salon.com!), sparking conversation, competition, criticism, and passion among its members.
Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan is interviewed at the North American College in Rome, Feb. 14, 2012.
For the record, the priest who married my wife and me in 1967 advised us that we could in good faith practice birth control. He reasoned that as Pope Paul VI was then preparing an encyclical regarding faith and sexuality, young Catholics could reasonably assume that church dogma regarding contraception would soon change to reflect contemporary realities: specifically that a couple intending to bring children into their marriage might legitimately seek to do so in their own time.
A university chaplain, he no doubt understood how the combination of Rome’s authoritarianism and theological nit-picking tended to drive educated young people from the church. Anyway, everybody knows how that worked out. Next came Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI’s 1968 doubling down on the church’s blanket condemnation of artificial means of birth control — a blast from the medieval past as most American Catholics now see it.
“Vatican Roulette,” we called it, and like the vast majority, declined to play. Surveys have shown that approximately 13 percent of the faithful agree with the Roman Catholic Church’s categorical ban on birth control; a mere 2 percent actually practice what the bishops preach. For most, it isn’t a serious personal issue. Sure, Your Grace, whatever.
For that matter, birthrates are declining in Catholic countries around the world. And a blessing it is, if poverty and human dignity concern you.
Until the U.S. Conference of Bishops recently got crosswise with the Obama administration, even the church rarely emphasized the contraceptive issue. So at first, I was mainly struck by the sheer quaintness of it all. (As, evidently, were many Catholic universities and hospitals quietly complying with state laws mandating contraceptive coverage.) The bishops’ indignant fulminations about their wounded consciences put me in mind of the hilarious production number in Monty Python’s “The Meaning of Life,” with its chorus of impoverished Catholic urchins singing
“Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.”
Coarse jokes about priests, altar boys and contraception virtually wrote themselves. I’ll spare you. But while we’re at it, let’s light a candle for Sinead O’Connor, an eccentric woman in combat boots with a shaven head, who tore up the pope’s photo on “Saturday Night Live” in 1992 to protest clerical sexual abuse of children in her native Ireland: wrecking her U.S. career to make a point entirely lost upon most viewers at the time.
In a bankruptcy proceeding last week, the diocese of Milwaukee listed 8,000 claims of sexual abuse among its liabilities. I’m with Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce, who writes that the great contraceptive kerfuffle with the Obama administration represents a fairly obvious power play by “the institutional American church to regain the power and influence in the secular government that it lost when it was exposed to be a multigenerational conspiracy to obstruct justice.”
If the reader detects bitterness, that’s an error of tone. The best priest I know is prone to remind his parishioners that the church is not God; rather, it’s a human institution, prone to sin and error. Recently watching him bless four little girls who carried alms to the altar, I was moved to think how humble, hardworking priests like him are also victims of the church hierarchy’s grave moral failure.
So you’d think they’d be a bit more modest in their rhetoric, the bishops. Particularly in anything touching upon human sexuality. This may be the place to say that I speak for nobody but myself. Not for Irish Catholics, Catholics in the South, Catholics Who Raise Fleckvieh Simmental Cows, nor even for my wife.
Her issue is how easily rich people are granted marriage annulments. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s marriage was declared null and void after 24 years and three children because — get this — he’d entered it with reservations. Specifically, he never intended to quit “dating.” (Evidently a family tradition.) Never mind that Kennedy’s ex-wife Joan agreed. Mine found it sickening, a patent end-run around the church’s unwillingness to countenance divorce.
For that matter, a couple of bishops attended Newt Gingrich’s third wedding. So don’t tell me they couldn’t find a way to accommodate President Obama’s downright Jesuitical compromise to the effect that Catholic hospitals don’t have to offer employees contraceptive care, but their insurance companies do. Canon lawyers make distinctions like that one every day.
Instead, they’ve settled upon a partisan power play to subvert the First Amendment rights they claim. Look, nobody’s forced to use contraceptives; it’s an individual’s choice, nobody else’s. Religious organizations have the right to believe anything they like, but not to impose those beliefs upon others. By essentially demanding a Catholic veto, the bishops and their GOP allies would impose their theological views upon millions of American women as a condition of employment.
That’s not “liberty,” it’s liberty’s opposite; and precisely what the First Amendment was written to prevent.
There’s a moment in Raymond Carver’s imperishable story “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” that might be described as one of unregistered revelation. Two middle-aged couples perch at a kitchen table consuming an anesthetizing amount of gin while trying to converse about the fundamentals of love. Mel McGinnis, a cardiologist and the table’s chief discourser, for whom “gin” is literally a middle name, offers a heuristic anecdote: He once administered to an elderly husband and wife, married for eons, who were almost snuffed out in a heinous car wreck. Supine in the same hospital room as his wife, the old man despairs not because of his own injuries but because he can’t see his wife through the eye holes in his full-body cast. “Can you imagine?” Mel asks. “I’m telling you, the man’s heart was breaking because he couldn’t turn his goddamn head and see his goddamn wife.”
Carver’s story is less a narrative than Mel’s monologue, his inebriated apologia on amore, and one that perhaps would have been better served by the title “How We Talk When We Talk About Love,” since the how is Carver’s real concern: in circles, platitudes and tautologies, and always without certainty or complete comprehension, drunk or otherwise. Mel concludes his anecdote by asking, “Do you see what I’m saying?” But of course none of the four does see, least of all Mel himself. In true Carverian fashion, all present have had multiple marriages and all kneel at the altar of alcohol. The god of the bottle, like covetous and insecure Yahweh himself, requires one’s complete fealty: Eros becomes another casualty of consumption. The revelation that Mel unknowingly offers — true love matures by paradox, by simultaneously vanquishing and uplifting the self — passes unregistered.
In the title story of Nathan Englander’s charismatic new collection, “What We Talk About When We Talk About Anne Frank,” revelations abound. Two Jewish couples — one secular and American, the other Hasidic and Israeli — spend a Sunday afternoon in the former’s Florida home downing vodka and sparring over Jewishness. The Israeli husband, Mark, is a convincing example of exactly what we find obnoxious and, worse, outright yawnful about religious zealotry: Chauvinism and moral superiority wedded to a fondness for bullshit and the very pressing need to spread it. The narrator oscillates between acceptance of and contempt for this oaken blowhard, though alcohol and marijuana help ease the afternoon.
But the marijuana, palliative in one regard, is also cause for the narrator’s unheralded discovery: His wife, Deb, has filched the weed from their teenage son’s bedroom. The narrator is unnerved to learn that his boy has a drug habit and, more menacing, that his wife has kept that fact from him: “It feels to me a lot like betrayal,” he muses. “Like my wife’s old secret” — she and the Israeli wife, Lauren, smoked copious pot as teenagers — “and my son’s new secret are wound up together and that I’ve somehow been wronged.” One senses that this awkward unmasking, this destruction of trust, will deliver a lightning bolt to an otherwise cloudless marriage.
The story’s second unheralded revelation belongs to Lauren. In a spacious pantry with the post-pot munchies, the four play an Anne Frank game devised by the Shoah-obsessed Deb: Should another Holocaust occur, which of their Gentile friends would protect them? Short on Christian comrades to hypothesize about, they turn to each other, and when Mark pretends to be a Gentile asked to safeguard his wife, Lauren realizes, in a tense and exposing moment, that he would not do it, despite his paltry assertions to the contrary.
Englander’s clever version of Carver’s famous story sacrifices precisely that element that makes the Carver so effective — the affirmation that epiphanic awakenings are rare, that people don’t improve because they are adverse to revelations that might challenge their fought-for complacency and force them to confront the inadequacies they’ve spent a lifetime hiding from — and yet the sacrifice yields its own potency. The narrator and Lauren will never behold anything in their homes quite the same way again. Carver’s story occurs on a quotidian day in denuded lives, Englander’s on an uncommon day in lives nearly whole. All eight will wake up the next morning hung over, but only two will wake up changed.
Englander must be one of the most charming, most likable storytellers in America. From his first collection, the wildly successful “For the Relief of Unbearable Urges,” to his novel, “The Ministry of Special Cases,” to this current collection, he crafts expert fiction with a close to saintly absence of self-congratulation and, more important, with a Cervantean facility for navigating the narrow strait between hilarity and heart wreck. In her magisterial study of Holocaust literature, “A Thousand Darknesses,” Ruth Franklin rightly contends that Englander’s story “The Tumblers,” from his debut collection, “is the most brilliant treatment of the Holocaust in contemporary American fiction.” It achieves this brilliance partly by way of a comedic absurdity that would feel at ease in Ionesco or Beckett — not the well-worn route for Holocaust literature.
In the final story of “Anne Frank,” “Free Fruit for Young Widows,” Englander revisits the Holocaust, this time without the absurdist hand. A Jerusalem fruit vendor tells his son the life story of a certain patron, Professor Tendler, a survivor of the Shoah and former soldier who served with the fruit vendor in the 1956 Suez War with Egypt. Tendler was a savage killer in the years following the liberation of the camps and in the requisite wars he fought for Israel. He had survived the camp by burrowing into “a mountain of putrid, naked corpses, a hill of men,” helped by fellow prisoners who colluded in his concealment and brought him “the crumbs of their crumbs to keep him going” until the Americans arrived. Upon returning home, Tendler slaughtered an entire family, including an infant, who had taken up residence in his house. The fruit vendor’s son is befuddled by how this individual could have turned so monstrous when his father, also a survivor, emerged with his morality intact. “He walks, he breathes,” the fruit vendor tells him, “and he was very close to making it out of Europe alive. But they killed him…. They killed what was left of him in the end.” The story is both a deeply unsettling and oddly touching meditation on the enigma of evil, and — in Kant’s famous metaphor — on the crooked timber of humanity from which no straight thing can ever be made.
No offering in “Anne Frank” fails to accomplish the objective of eminent storytelling: an aptitude for entertainment and instruction affixed to a faultless aesthetic sensibility. “Peep Show” unfurls as if in a Freudian nightmare. “Sister Hills” includes an elegant sparsity and faintly fabulist bent reminiscent of the great Israeli novelist Aharon Appelfeld. A twist on the classic bully tale “How We Avenged the Blums” extols the deliciousness of retribution while mining the dysphoria that deems it necessary. The most searing, sinister story in the collection, “Camp Sundown,” should be the envy of suspense writers everywhere: At an idyllic summer camp, a pair of survivors becomes convinced that a fellow camper was a Nazi guard during the Holocaust. Josh, the young camp director, grows slowly incensed: “Doley Falk, a Nazi. An old Nazi hiding in the Berkshires under the guise of a blue-toed low-sodium bridge-playing Jew. It is madness.” And by plot’s end that madness will morph into horror, as madness will do given half a chance.
If Englander has a shortcoming as a storyteller it’s his apparent inability to imagine a human predicament that is not insistently Jewish. The least pernicious effect of this can be the ennui involved in asking one to traipse over the same landscape again and again, while the most pernicious can be akin to proselytizing. Despite his frequent critiques and satirizing of the Orthodox, Englander writes as if he’s still one of them. One shouldn’t wish to be tagged a Jewish writer any more than one should wish to be tagged a female writer or an atheist writer, and yet Englander screams for that nomenclature.
He himself hints at an awareness of this potential snag. In “Everything I Know About My Family on My Mother’s Side,” the girlfriend tells the narrator, a writer named Nathan, “What you do is tell the stories you have, as best you can.” And when Nathan suggests that his stories might be too recognizable, too rote, the girlfriend changes her mind: “You find better stories than that.” In Englander’s case, though, better is not the problem — other is the problem.
Perhaps Bellow is an unjust contrast for any living fiction writer to be set against, but consider how his journeys of mind are never restricted by a single religio-cultural passport; consider his steadfast resistance to being cubicled. Updike’s immortality has been assured in part by an intrepid willingness to go almost anywhere as witness (how many novelists who happen to be secular Protestants would risk the anomie, the chutzpah, to birth Henry Bech, occluded Jewish writer with an inclination to homicide?). Carver, on the other hand, will always be just shy of greatness because his imagination was tranquilized by his circumstances. No one better understands a heaven-less working class ambushed by the fallacy of the American Dream, but Carver simply has no other subject. “Write what you know” sits among the worst advice ever uttered.
Which is not to suggest that Englander has an equally tranquilized imagination. All three of his books indeed contain stretches of superb imaginative and fabulist strength. Englander has had a Borgesian streak in him from the start and more in common with Bruno Schulz than many have been willing to propose. But the incessant likening of him to Jewish writer par excellence, I. B. Singer, is mainly on target. If Englander intends to join the immortals he’ll have to obviate over-trodden territory and widen his range.
For now — no American storyteller writes more beautifully about Jewish identity, and “What We Talk About when We Talk About Anne Frank” is an indelible confirmation of Englander’s observant integrity, one more attestation to the promise of his greatness.
Fans of Jeremy Lin hold up signs during the second half of the New York Knicks/Toronto Raptors game on Tuesday. (Credit: Reuters/Mike Cassese)
I have never cared about basketball, ever. Not once. Yet inside of the last two weeks I have learned what a point guard is, what he does and why it matters. I had a roller-coaster night Saturday, when I wanted to watch a New York Knicks game for the first time, then learned that a squabble between Madison Square Garden and Time Warner has left about 1 million fans without MSG Channel (including me). I didn’t even know how to start finding a bar with the game on — something I’ve previously resented, in fact — so I contented myself by watching the video diaries on Lin’s YouTube channel.
Days later, sometime yesterday, in fact, when I caught myself reading a post about the couch Jeremy Lin slept on before his first night as the Knicks’ new star point guard, I had two reactions. First, it didn’t look big enough for him. The next one: Wait, who am I — and more important, what is happening to me? It was like I was in a “Portlandia” sketch about Linsanity.
The gated community that was the NBA has had a crasher arrive and jump the fence: JLin, the Linja, the Linsanity, Super Lintendo, the Yellow Mamba to Kobe Bryant’s Black Mamba. (Kobe learned this the hard way the other night, when the Knicks beat his Lakers, right after he had asked “Who is this kid?”) That nickname alone is as good a place as any to begin. Before Jeremy Lin arrived, there was not even the thought of a Yellow Mamba. There was no major Asian American NBA star who captured the hearts of fans. There were no fans wearing cutout masks of an Asian American player courtside as a group. Houston Rockets center Yao Ming may have been a forerunner, but he was an import, the beloved alien.
The NBA, much like America’s conversation about race, has been something of a black and white ball — and Asian American stars were simply not invited to the dance. Consider the college coaches who overlooked him because they “didn’t have a frame of reference” for his talents, or the NBA teams that released Lin, suddenly red-faced as the moribund Knicks win six straight.
Whatever screen you’re watching on, your phone, computer or TV, it’s the Jeremy Lin show now, and the whole country is tuning in. The boxer Floyd Mayweather insisting that Lin’s only getting attention because he’s Asian — do we think Floyd knows anything about basketball? There are Pinterest posts of his sixth-grade class photo and endless online nickname contests. He’s everywhere you look. When was the last time you saw a bigger crush of people trying to nickname a new star?
This urge to nickname Lin is an effort by people to act like they know him. What we’re learning, however, is that he’s as difficult to pin down culturally as he is on the court. He continues to defy expectations. Maybe you thought there were no tall Asians, didn’t know about Asian Christians or didn’t think Asians could play basketball. Maybe you never cared about basketball, never cared about the Knicks. Or maybe you didn’t need a crash course on what a point guard does. Maybe you thought you were done with Christian sports figures. Either way, chances are you’ve learned something new watching Jeremy Lin, about him, yourself and other people.
My first thought on seeing Jeremy Lin was that he reminded me of my cousins. Like many, I felt like I knew him. He’s a kind of kid I’ve seen my whole life — funny, smart, quick and brave. And Asian American. When I heard he was a Harvard grad, I thought: Of course, the first Asian American NBA superstar also had to go to Harvard and get better than a 3.0. And then: Way to raise the stakes on the Asian American overachiever. It’s still true that whatever color you are in America, if you’re not white you have to be twice as good to get half as far. But the Jeremy Lin paradox is that this champion — this skinny kid just out of college, this overlooked smiling Taiwanese American kid with, as we say, ‘the good Asian hair’ that is thick and stands straight up — he is making room for the rest of us. Part of the Jeremy Lin moment is America looking at an Asian American and realizing he’s just an American, too.
The great irony to his moment is that Jeremy Lin as a national figure is so much better than anyone I might have dreamed up as a possible solution to a problem with a body count: Asian Americans are currently the No. 1 most bullied demographic in America. The same invisibility that kept Jeremy Lin outside the “frame of reference” of coaches also kept the two different units who hounded Cpl. Harry Lew and Pvt. Danny Chen to suicide last year with constant racist taunts and physical abuse from realizing they were well outside the limits of respectful internal military discipline.
It would be laying way too much on Jeremy Lin to ask him to help turn this around, as if he didn’t have enough to do as point guard for the Knicks. But we don’t have to ask him — it is already just happening. Jeremy Lin’s getting slapped around a lot at Madison Square Garden, but it’s all love — when he drained that game-winning three-pointer in the last half-second against Toronto Tuesday night, he was covered in punches — the kind you can only give the hero who pulls it out of the bag. I still have a strange impulse when I see him, like I want to run out there, help on defense — me who has never played basketball! — or yell “Back up off the skinny kid!” even when they rush him with love. It’s just from a whole lifetime of watching bullying happen, a lifetime of people — white, black, Latin — coming up to me, my brother, my sister, my cousins, muttering under their breath “Ching Chong Ching Chong,” the prelude to a beating. But it’s only post-traumatic stress disorder; it’s not the present. No one on the Knicks is saying that to him. He has this.
And while Jeremy Lin may not single-handedly make all of the bullying go away, somewhere in America, at least one Asian American kid right now is getting invited into a pick-up game instead of cornered and beaten. That’s the game that matters, more than anything you’ll see during a Knicks game. And Lin is helping win that one, too.

Page 1 of 15137 in All Salon
Rombo’s got nothing on Santorum
Inside Germany’s famed art school
Catholic hypocrisy at its worst
A beautiful exploration of Jewish identity
The Jeremy Lin show
Santorum tests positive and negative
When sexy ads cross the line
House Republicans lose their will to fight
When Iran and Israel were friendly
The anti-Santorum onslaught begins