The next cover of The New Yorker

The New Yorker shows and explains its next cover, for the 92nd anniversary issue. The artist is John Tomac.

Under more ordinary circumstances, the cover of the issue for February 13 and 20, 2017—our Anniversary Issue, marking ninety-two years—would feature some version of Rea Irvin’s classic image of the monocled dandy Eustace Tilley. This year, as a response to the opening weeks of the Trump Administration, particularly the executive order on immigration, we feature John W. Tomac’s dark, unwelcoming image, “Liberty’s Flameout.” “It used to be that the Statue of Liberty, and her shining torch, was the vision that welcomed new immigrants. And, at the same time, it was the symbol of American values,” Tomac says. “Now it seems that we are turning off the light.”

Well, I think we could get that without needing an explanation. It is, however, a very powerful piece of art.

58941ea925000032080b6aba

56 Comments

  1. Posted February 3, 2017 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    sub

  2. Maria
    Posted February 3, 2017 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    Sadly beautiful.

  3. Craw
    Posted February 3, 2017 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    “One must have a heart of stone to read the death of little Nell without laughing.” — Oscar Wilde

  4. Mark R.
    Posted February 3, 2017 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    Poignant…the rising smoke also evokes other connotations.

    • Posted February 3, 2017 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

      “Poignant…the rising smoke also evokes other connotations.”

      Now that you mention it YES! The 9/11 attackers with Trumps assistance, have now somewhat achieved their goals.

      • Mark R.
        Posted February 3, 2017 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

        I wasn’t thinking 9/11…just the general feeling of shit being bombed and smoke rising.

  5. Ann German
    Posted February 3, 2017 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    I just had a pussygrabber supporter in my law office (I’ve been refusing to take clients who support him) and wish I had had this picture to show him . . . I DID show him my bumper sticker, though (IMPEACH PUSSY GRABBER)

  6. Claudia Baker
    Posted February 3, 2017 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    Very powerful indeed. Heartbreakingly so.

  7. Kevin
    Posted February 3, 2017 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Covers of many news organizations are beginning to look science fiction book covers.

  8. Shep
    Posted February 3, 2017 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    Current cover of the Economist is quite good as well, IMO.

    http://www.economist.com/printedition/covers/2017-02-02/ap-e-eu-la-me-na-uk

  9. David Jorling
    Posted February 3, 2017 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    A 4 month old baby from Iran was barred from entry into the US. She was to have surgery for a heart condition at Oregon Heath Sciences University here in Portland. Here is the link to the story. Words now fail me to describe what are country is becoming under Trump. The cover says it best.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/02/iranian_infant_scheduled_for_s.html#incart_most-read_

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted February 3, 2017 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

      Well that made the country safer. Hail Trump!

    • mordacious1
      Posted February 3, 2017 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

      Too bad there are no other countries in the world that can do that surgery.

      • Posted February 3, 2017 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

        That’s just a fantastic argument for not allowing this girl entry. SEP! SEP!

      • Posted February 3, 2017 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

        Imagine you witness a horrible accident ahead of you on the freeway. You slow down and roll down your window. You say to the critically injured people “Well, I’m not going to call 911 or help in any way, but there will be lots of people who can coming up behind me.”

        • mordacious1
          Posted February 4, 2017 at 12:22 am | Permalink

          Imagine coming across that terrible accident and the person is being put into an ambulance. Instead of sending said ambulance to the nearest trauma center, the authorities send it 20 states away. Why send this baby across the Atlantic and then across the US (other than because relatives are there), when there are closer hospitals in Germany and the UK?

          This whole immigration ban fiasco reminds me of the roll out of Obama Care. Not well thought out and it initially flopped. Of course, this baby should be allowed in, the Iraqi interpreters should be allowed in, people who have already been here, should be let in. But no one in the administration thought of all that. Doing too much, too soon. But just as Obama Care got the bugs worked out, this Trump plan limiting immigration from 7 countries will have the bugs worked out too. All I’m saying is, that in the meantime, the kid could have gone to a closer hospital that does the same operation.

          • GBJames
            Posted February 4, 2017 at 8:25 am | Permalink

            I don’t think the analogy to the Obamacare rollout is very good. The latter was full of all sorts of technical problems, technical as in “software bugs”. As someone who has spent his entire working life in software development it did not surprise me that the system rollout was problematic.

            Complex software system rollouts should not happen until the software was ready and the developers didn’t have time to properly test and debug it. That’s not an excuse for not (if possible) having started earlier or even for (possibly) poor project management.

            But it is very different from the fiasco created by a handful of ideologues like Steve Bannon ramming through the immigration ban without bothering to get input from the institutions that are charged with implementing things.

            This rollout was intended, I think, to create chaos. Chaos is an everyday feature of the tRump regime. And that’s very different from the ACA web site fiasco.

          • Posted February 4, 2017 at 9:37 am | Permalink

            If they can go to one of the top hospitals for the procedure *and* have family in the area, that’s a big deal. I wouldn’t be so dismissive. They should have that option.

            If no one in Trump’s administration thought of scenarios like this then we are well and truly fucked because they are obviously very bad at thinking. Scenarios like this *immediately* occurred to me, and I’m only an average thinker.

            • mordacious1
              Posted February 4, 2017 at 10:05 am | Permalink

              That we can agree on, that Trump and his cronies are totally incompetent imbeciles.

              If I were one of the relatives of this child, I’d be hesitant to travel for the operation. Trump might not let them back in. I would think though, that the important thing is that the kid get the procedure, worry about the kumbaya time with the family later.

              • Posted February 4, 2017 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

                My point wasn’t to worry about kumbaya family time. My point was that there’s no reason to deny them their kumbaya family time. The fact that there may be other places to have the operation doesn’t mean it’s not an extremely dick move to say “Nope. You can’t have it here.”

    • Posted February 3, 2017 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

      God, that’s DREADFUL. Can’t somebody vet cases like this and make exceptions. Stuff like this needs to be publicized more widely.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted February 3, 2017 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

      Does no-one have the authority to interpret the ‘law’ in a commonsense way and conclude that the girl is neither old enough to be a risk nor seeking to stay longer than her surgery and recuperation requires…

      No, guess not.

      cr

  10. David Jorling
    Posted February 3, 2017 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    “our” country. Apologies.

  11. rickflick
    Posted February 3, 2017 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    Unfortunately, I don’t think this will be widely seen. I doubt Trump’s supporters subscribe to Atlantic. It should get some air time on FB and twitter though.
    Trump’s approval rating (Gallup) is holding at about 45% right now, which isn’t very encouraging. While some of us feel his actions so far have been a disaster, his half of the population think he’s doing the right thing. At this point, the republicans in congress will simply wait and see if Trump stays strong or sinks like a rock. Only then will they abandon him in large numbers.

    • Craw
      Posted February 3, 2017 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

      Ah well, at least those who subscribe to the New Yorker will see the Atlantic’s cover.

  12. Randall Schenck
    Posted February 3, 2017 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Is it not ironic that this hypocrite Trump and his whole gang spend their energy on abortion and yet have no problem with born children being left to die.

    To even imagine how hard it was before Trump to get a chance at coming to the U.S., I, a simple U.S. citizen will review the pathetic regulations for licensing a car and your self when going from one state to another:

    For a driver’s license they require your birth certificate or passport, your license from previous state, registration and insurance, two items to prove your residence in the new state. Then to another facility to have your car inspected and also showing license, insurance and title for the car. Then take your inspection along with all other papers to yet another office to get the new tags for your car. You of course have no idea where these places are located or in what order you need to go to get there. So what the hell would it be like for someone from another country to drive or have a license in this place…assuming they could ever get here. And this is all state govt., nothing from the fed in this.

  13. mordacious1
    Posted February 3, 2017 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    A bit hyperbolic. Trump temporarily restricted immigration from 7 countries out of how many? That’s hardly going to put the torch out completely, just dim it slightly. The US currently has roughly 52 million immigrants residing in its borders, the gates appear to be wide open. Most muslims are as free to come here as they were prior to Trump.

    It’s interesting how Trump got into that argument with Turnbull about taking those refugees that Australia refuses to accept and no one complains too loudly about Australia’s immigration policy.

    • Posted February 3, 2017 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

      Point of information, please.
      54M?
      Are you summing illegals, Dreamers, Green Card holders, temporary visa holders and H1-b? Or? 52 million out of 315 million is a huge percentage.

      • mordacious1
        Posted February 3, 2017 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

        That number is the total people now living in the US legally or illegally that were not born here. The largest portion are people who have immigrated legally. There are estimated to be 11.5 million illegals.

        And yes, 52 million is a large number. That’s the point.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted February 3, 2017 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

          You applying the “one-drop” rule to their offspring?

          • mordacious1
            Posted February 3, 2017 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

            No.

        • John Taylor
          Posted February 3, 2017 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

          Is that number a good or bad thing from your point of view? From your various posts I get the impression you think the large number of immigrants is a bad thing. Many countries have as large an immigrant population as the US does and they seem to be doing well. From my point of view immigration is a good thing.

          Didn’t Trump also temporarily ban all refugees? What is the purpose of that other than being cold hearted?

          • mordacious1
            Posted February 3, 2017 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

            I personally feel that immigration is a good thing. Trump slogans aside, it’s what made America great to begin with. That being said, there are times when we need to restrict immigration for various reasons and people shouldn’t freak out about it. These new rules affect a very small portion of the total immigration numbers. People are still coming here and for the most part, they’re still welcome.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted February 3, 2017 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

              “… there are times when we need to restrict immigration for various reasons …”

              That’s precisely what was said when the MS St. Louis was turned away from our shores. Far as I’m concerned, “never again” means, like, you know, never again.

              What is it that makes these times so dire that we must change our immigration policy? And don’t tell me it’s the remote possibility of some foreign refugee launching a terrorist attack. We’ve faced down much graver dangers before; no need to become a nation of pansy-ass cowards now.

              • mordacious1
                Posted February 3, 2017 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

                You disagree with this right wing firebrand then:
                http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/260471-schumer-refugee-pause-may-be-necessary

                There are several differences between the Holocaust and what is going on now. The Jews weren’t fighting the Nazis in a civil war. They were being exterminated for no reason. There wasn’t much chance of a Jew coming over here and blowing up my local mall. And this has nothing to do with being “pansy-ass cowards”. No matter how brave you are, no one wants their wife and daughter blown to pieces while shopping for a new doll.

                BTW, this isn’t a change in our immigration policy. Presidents have always had the power to restrict immigration when necessary. Obama did it as other presidents have done before him. The difference is, Trump is an evil racist and Obama was a very nice guy.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted February 3, 2017 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

                “Pansy-ass cowards” was inappropriate. Obviously, it wasn’t directed at you personally in any way; I had my dander up about something else. But it was over the top — “Trumpian,” even. I apologize. (That still doesn’t mean I agree with you, of course. 🙂 )

      • mordacious1
        Posted February 3, 2017 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

        I’ve seen the number estimated to be from 42-62 million (although the 62 probably includes children born here, so not immigrants and shouldn’t be counted). The following site gives the number to be 42 million, but that’s still a large portion of the total population:

        http://www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/us-immigration-snapshot-2011.aspx

        • Posted February 3, 2017 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

          Thank you.

          Without legal immigration, our birth rate is low.

          • Derek Freyberg
            Posted February 3, 2017 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

            Indeed.
            Immigration is the key to the future welfare of the US, by bringing in a self-selected group of young, intelligent, working people to supplement those born here.

            • Posted February 3, 2017 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

              Trump could silence a mountain of flame just by putting energy, money and publicity into a plan to blow open the backlog of legal immigration requests, establishing a new guest-worker program, reversing yesterdays threat against H1-b, and inviting the world to send their best. He could also brainstorm a plan to give the Dreamers a path to citizenship, but only if they “qualify” by demonstrating their value.

              This is not what got him elected, however.

              Better watch out. If Trump indeed creates a surge in prosperity, jobs and enterprise, where the hell is he going to get the workers?

  14. Posted February 3, 2017 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    It looks like a Trump-caused freedom flame-out to the New Yorker, and many other Blue intellectuals.

    1) The demise of freedom in the United States has been caused by 120 years of slow suffocation from the Progressive Project, which fathered/mothered the Cartelist Leviathan we have now.

    2) The backlash to it elected Trump. He is not a principled American Revolutionary, but some bulldog with a nose full of fight. We who understand point #1 above hope he’ll make blunder moves that will unravel the BlueEstablishment. It will be extremely messy and ugly.

    Hell, Trump has already cost George Soros $1 Billion on his bets for Hillary. That’s something

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted February 3, 2017 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

      Well, then, it seems the vox populi paranoid-style has spoken.

  15. Posted February 3, 2017 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    So people are complaining that the third-most-populous country on the planet, already in living conditions for ordinary citizens becoming more like India and China daily, might seek to slow the human influx? We are already awash in wretched refuse; how much more do we need? Shall we finally release the bits of remaining wilderness to this frightful metastasis? If 325 million humans is not a sufficiently bloated population, what is? Whatever happened to “environmentalists,” those foresight full souls who recognized that without population brakes there can be no “sustainability”?

    The notion seems to be that because so many humans have emigrated to North America since the first Siberian influx of the damned things, we must stick to it until we denude the continent. Not much of a way to slow climate change, is it?

    • John Taylor
      Posted February 3, 2017 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

      Awash in refuse? Nice! You must be loving the Trump.

      Have you been to India or China? I find your statement quite absurd.

  16. Ken Kukec
    Posted February 3, 2017 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    Can hear the hiss coming off the dying embers from across the nation.

    Hell, from across the planet.

  17. Merilee
    Posted February 3, 2017 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    Sub

  18. DiscoveredJoys
    Posted February 3, 2017 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    So who is putting out the flame? Trump (an unpleasant man, true) who is carrying out the policies he stood for in a democratic election – or all those protestors who can’t accept a democratically appointed President and want to close down Free Speech?

    The dislike of Trump is understandable, but people who are swept up in the moment might like to pause and think how other Presidents have acted in the recent past. Bombing other countries into democracy? Drone strikes? Extraordinary rendition? Trumps actions (so far) shouldn’t be used to dismiss previous questionable activities.

    I rather think the flame of the Statue of Liberty (recognized as a universal symbol of freedom and democracy) has been flickering for some time.

    • GBJames
      Posted February 3, 2017 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

      “Trumps actions (so far) shouldn’t be used to dismiss previous questionable activities.”

      Who’s doing that?

      • DiscoveredJoys
        Posted February 3, 2017 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

        Ask yourself “who benefits?”. I’m not suggesting any conspiracy theories, merely human nature. The liberal main stream media have found a rich seam of news to exploit, and they are not very keen on Trump’s combative nature. Other political opponents would rather the spotlight be pointed at Trump than at their own previous actions. Plus of course any lobbyists that think they have lost influence that they took for granted with previous administations (although others are hoping to become BFF but are keeping a low profile).

        • GBJames
          Posted February 3, 2017 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

          Sorry, but if you can’t provide actual examples of people doing that then I will conclude that you are just spinning conspiracy theories. (Unevidenced ideological assertions that can, as Mr. Hitchens taught us, be dismissed without evidence.)

          • DiscoveredJoys
            Posted February 4, 2017 at 4:39 am | Permalink

            Fair enough. I trust you will use the same standards when you put forward your own views.

            • GBJames
              Posted February 4, 2017 at 8:27 am | Permalink

              You are free to point such things out when you see them.

  19. Posted February 3, 2017 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Logical Place.

  20. Posted February 4, 2017 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    Having lived most of the time in two countries outside my birthplace, I find that, generally speaking, at all times have immigrants been beneficial to any country in the world. That includes foreigners that are illegal only because of indolence. Even refugees will behave, out of gratitude.
    .-


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: