I’ve cued up a clip about two and a half minutes long. It contains some facts I probably ought to have realized but never knew till I listened to the video:
Magnitude 7.5 earthquake in Venezuela near Caracas
That’s big, and it is feared that the damage and loss of life is great. What’s even worse is that it wasn’t just one earthquake; it was two about a minute apart, the first at 7.1 and the second at 7.5. The only good thing about it was that people had a little bit of time to evacuate:
The earthquakes struck shortly after 6 p.m. local time. People evacuated swaying buildings in Caracas and remained outside, many visibly shocked as they saw entire walls that had collapsed, making furniture visible from the street. Dust columns could also be seen in two neighborhoods of the capital, where restaurants and other businesses are typically busy. People remained on the streets after sunset. Some sat on the ground hugging their pets as dust gathered around them.
“It started off gently and then gradually grew, and in the end, we all had to leave our houses, go outside and gather together,” Caracas resident Hector Ricci said.
I wonder how many of the buildings in Caracas are designed to withstand quakes. This was apparently the biggest one there in about a century. My guess is that the buildings aren’t designed for a big one, and this is why:
Strong earthquakes are unusual in Venezuela.
While the country sits near multiple fault lines, its position straddling the South American and Caribbean plates makes earthquakes much less common than in other parts of Latin America.
It was felt in Colombia and parts of the Caribbean. I very much hope the death toll isn’t high, but I fear it is.
[NOTE: I wasn’t at my computer or on my phone when the first news came, so I just heard about it close to 9:30 PM. But earlier today I had heard the news of a thankfully-much-smaller earthquake near the Fort Bragg area of California: a magnitude 5.6, which was the biggest in that area of California in the last forty years. It’s a beautiful place I know well, and I have relatives and friends all over the state.
I’ve been to California at least 75 times in the last 50 years, and have probably been in five or six earthquakes there myself. However, mercifully, I’ve never been in a very serious one – although a person doesn’t know that at the time until it’s over. I’ve been in ones that are gentle and ones that begin with a harsh jolt, ones that seem to be over quickly and ones that seem to go on for quite some time. They are always frightening, every single one of them.
Northern California and Caracas are very far from each other and on different tectonic plates, and so these earthquakes on the same day were almost certainly coincidental. But if it’s a coincidence, it’s certainly an eerie one.]
Foreign visitors ♥ America
You can see the videos all over the internet: foreign visitors for the World Cup, enjoying the US – especially the food, the free refills on soda, and the friendliness.
You can read a description here, and YouTube is filled with reports such as this one, a compilation which I’ve chosen pretty much at random:
One theme that repeats itself is shock and wonder at the sheer size of America. Similar clips have been on YouTube for years, featuring foreign tourists reacting – mostly positively – to trips to the US. So it’s not just something about the World Cup visitors.
But I’ve noticed one topic lately that I’ve never seen before in this genre of videos. It’s about seeing yellow school buses:
Tucker Carlson announces something that was already clear: he’s not a Republican
And he does it with his usual narcissistic flair:
Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson says he’s “out” of the Republican Party moving forward, arguing the GOP no longer reflects his views. …
“And if I’m out, then I think a lot of other people are out.”
He fancies himself a thought leader. And you know what? He most definitely does have followers and a huge digital audience. The question is about the composition and range of that audience. There is some evidence that a large number of them live abroad, particularly in Pakistan, and that many are of the bot persuasion. But I happen to think that a significant number are real live voting-age Americans, although I’ve read extremely variable estimates of their numbers
Whatever Tucker’s influence, I’d wager many of his followers left the GOP long ago.
I’ve written a great many posts on Carlson in the last year or two, ever since he left Fox and began his very visible political “turn.” I’ve described it in some depth, especially in this, which is the first part of a three-part series I wrote, and contains links to parts two and three of the series.
This political change of Carlson’s resulted in – among other things – his current emphasis on Israel and Jews as the source of most of the world’s problems. It’s an old story, but everything old is new again.
From his recent farewell to the GOP:
Carlson said, adding that the GOP has “betrayed” voters by prioritizing Israel’s national security over America’s.
I think this short clip is a good analysis of some of Carlson’s rhetorical tricks:
Carlson also says he “is unsure how he’ll vote moving forward” but that he’s not a Democrat.
But Tucker already has been supporting Democrats by allying with them in being obsessed with the unique evil he – and they – think Israel is. He also supports Democrats by having worked to split the right for several years now, first on Ukraine but especially after 10/7 and escalating much more after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. He would not have dared had Kirk been alive.
I also believe that Tucker knows pretty much what he’ll do “moving forward.” The question is not how he’ll vote; he’s just one vote, after all. It’s whom he will endorse, whom he’ll choose to interview and about what, and whether he’ll run for office himself. He doesn’t have to do the latter to split the party by endorsing some third-party candidate, either, which he might do.
Or maybe it’s Vance he’ll focus on and support, depending on whether Vance is truly allied with some of Tucker’s worst impulses or whether Vance is just pretending to be Tucker-adjacent the better to keep the party together for 2028. I don’t know which it is and I can’t read Vance’s mind.
Mamdani’s picks win their primaries in New York
And winning the Democratic primaries in these House districts leads to virtually certain victories in November.
That’s the beauty of a deep blue district. Win the primary and you’re in. And what you might imagine of Mamdani’s picks is true: they are fellow “progressive” leftist Democratic Socialists, and are supported by the same voters that liked Mamdani. That group is highly motivated and fed up with incumbents for the most part – a phenomenon similar to the one that propelled AOC into her seat in the beginning of her career:
When campaigning Tuesday, Mamdani said it was not a question of electing more Democrats, it was a question of electing “better Democrats.”
CBS News New York political reporter Marcia Kramer says that in effect, he was tapping into recent a poll finding that New York voters were fed up with politics as usual and were ready to clean house.
The winners will be going to the US House. Then again, even if more moderate Democrats had won the primaries (although “moderate” is a relative word these days), they probably would be voting exactly the same as these far leftists. However, this seems to be the direction of the Democratic Party in safe blue enclaves: to nominate the most radical candidate possible.
In the 13th District, nominee Chevalier “won’t say murderers should go to prison, won’t support deporting illegal immigrant convicted rapists, and won’t condemn Hamas or 10/7.” What’s more, it seems to have been white voters who supported her and black and Hispanic voters who supported her opponent:
Espaillat led w/ older, lower income, Black, & Hispanic voters. “Socialist” Chevalier led w/ younger, college-educ., higher income, i.e. gentrifiers.
In the 10th District, the main difference between the winner and the 2nd-place loser was that the latter was the incumbent, Dan Goldman. Oh, and the winner is anti-Israel:
Lander’s knock-out of two-term Rep. Goldman delivers one of the night’s biggest intraparty upsets. Lander, who enjoyed the backing of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), defeated Goldman in a race that became a proxy battle between the party’s progressive wing and its more establishment faction.
Both candidates are Jewish, so that was not the issue. But Lander said he wanted to join “that fight to end occupation, and apartheid and genocide.”
This is definitely the wave of the future for Democrats. Although they will run less obviously leftist candidates in more purple areas, if such candidates win they will vote with the others.
And what is the plan of the Democratic Socialists? They’ve got one, and it’s nothing less than revolutionary. The left might not be able to win a presidency, but they would like to fix it so that they don’t need to:
Earlier this month, the Democratic Socialists of America’s top leadership met for an in-person meeting of their National Political Committee (NPC), the DSA’s governing authority. The result of the meeting was “Workers Deserve More!”, a rebooted platform for the organization featuring a host of radical proposals. The document commits DSA to scrapping the U.S. Senate, “abolishing the carceral forces of the capitalist state,” defunding the Department of War, amnesty for all immigrants, and “replac[ing] the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”
As more and more members seek election to local and national positions, the platform represents a clear statement of the DSA’s views. Its radicalism, therefore, gives a glimpse into how the equivalent of the DSA’s board of directors—some of whom have appeared to moderate—actually think about politics.
It’s “our democracy” all right; the sort of thing the Founding Fathers worked so hard to avoid. It is also the fruit of the long Gramscian march through our institutions, especially that of higher education. I suggest you read the whole thing; I may write more about it in a future post.
Open thread 6/24/2026
Iran again. Or not.
I’m not planning to write anything lengthy on the Iran talks until something definitive happens. If it ever does. For example, this sort of back-and-forth dueling narratives has happened over and over, and has happened again:
The U.S.-Iran summit in Switzerland has run into trouble on its third day, with both sides making conflicting claims. A day after Vice President JD Vance hailed a ‘major milestone’ in talks, declaring Iran had agreed to allow United Nations inspectors back into the country, the Iranian negotiators denied the claim.
There’s much more at the link, if you’re interested.
Law roundup
Lots of news on the law front:
(1) More indictments regarding the widespread fraud that’s been going on:
“Since June 8, we’ve charged 455 defendants across 56, like I said a minute ago, US attorney’s offices and 45 US states and territories, as alleged in the various indictments,” said acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. “These individuals participated in healthcare fraud schemes involving over $6.5 billion in false claims submitted to Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs.”
The scope of the fraud is tremendous. And that’s only the people who’ve been located; is it the tip of an iceberg? If so, it’s a very large tip.
[Dr. Mehmet] Oz mentioned that the fraud team identified these cases using tools that previous administrations rarely used.
“We use administrative muscle to push things through, and we are closing loopholes that fraudsters have avoided and been exploiting for years,” stated Oz. “Those days are over.”
Something tells me that previous administrations weren’t interested in closing those loopholes.
(2) Finally, some real consequences for Antifa violence.
I’m referring to this [emphasis mine]:
Eight people were sentenced to prison June 23, 2026, in connection with the nonfatal shooting of an Alvarado police officer outside the Prairieland Detention Center July 4, 2025. Authorities have called it the first-ever federal terrorism case associated with “antifa.”
Prairieland ICE detention center shooter Benjamin Song was sentenced to 100 years in prison Tuesday, with others getting 30 years or more for their role in a July 4, 2025 immigration protest turned violent.
Song was convicted of attempted murder for shooting and injuring an Alvarado police officer outside the Prairieland Detention Center during the demonstration.
U.S. District Judges Mark Pittman and Reed O’Connor also sentenced seven others, who were convicted in March of playing a role in the nonfatal shooting of Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross outside the ICE facility as part of an “antifa” cell.
What’s with the scare quotes around “antifa,” and why isn’t the word capitalized? Note the Wiki entry for the group; it begins this way:
Antifa is a left-wing anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement.
It calls itself “anti-fascist” and in fact that’s what its name stands for. But it’s an Orwellian name. Antifa defines who the fascists are, and for instance ICE gets the label according to Antifa.
More from Wiki:
Antifa political activism includes nonviolent methods of direct action such as poster and flyer campaigns, mutual aid, speeches, protest marches, community organizing and digital activism. Some others use tactics like doxing, harassment, violence, and property damage.
Mostly peaceful – except when it’s not.
More:
Supporters of the movement aim to combat far-right extremists, including neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
Like ICE – and other groups designated as evil fascists by that other noble anti-fascist group, the SPLC.
(3) And in Merry Olde England:
Leaders of the nationalist group Raise the Colours have agreed to stop hoisting England flags on lamp-posts in Oxfordshire after the local authority secured a high court injunction against the campaign. …
The Raise the Colours campaign has been putting up flags across the country since August last year, the court heard. Bridge, who like the other defendants was representing himself, told the court the council were using “bullying tactics” but he agreed to the proposed terms of the injunction.
He said: “It is a sad day for the flag of our country and what it represents.”
(4) Two more people have been charged in a terrorist plot:
The FBI has identified two additional suspects in the alleged plot targeting the UFC Freedom 250 event in Washington, D.C., bringing the total number of publicly identified defendants to seven.
Newly unsealed court records identify Missouri resident Jordan W. Rincker and Washington state resident William Lee Spartacus Falkner as alleged members of the conspiracy. Prosecutors say Rincker allegedly helped fund and facilitate the operation, while Falkner allegedly discussed procuring and operating drones intended for use in the attack.
Five suspects previously were charged in the case in recent days. Investigators allege the group planned to use explosive-laden drones to trigger a mass evacuation of the June 14 event before directing fleeing crowds toward prepositioned shooters. FBI officials previously told Fox News Digital that a “second wave” was then expected to target the White House gate.
I wondered whether this was a case of possible entrapment – or at least including the participation of an FBI agent posing as a member. I don’t see any report that this was a factor; the article says the following:
The plot was allegedly disrupted after the mother of Proper, a 19-year-old Ohio defendant in the case, called in a tip to the FBI.
A seizure of Proper’s phone helped investigators identify other members of the alleged network.
(5) A SCOTUS ruling on immigration:
In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court held that border officers do not need clear and convincing evidence that a returning lawful permanent resident committed a crime before treating the resident as an applicant for admission and vacated the 2nd Circuit’s decision. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the dissent, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joined.
In his opinion, Thomas emphasizes that the statute operates in two stages:
Can the Government regard the person as seeking admission? (This only requires that the person committed one of the listed crimes.)
Can the Government actually remove the alien? (Yes, if the Government can prove the alien’s inadmissibility — Lau’s guilty plea supplies that proof.)
Colombia had an election
There seems to be a political trend in Latin America towards the right, and Colombia has just joined it:
The latest: Abelardo de la Espriella’s victory in Colombia’s presidential election after President Donald Trump endorsed him.
De la Espriella beat left-winger Iván Cepeda by vowing to crack down on crime and corruption and to rescue the economy, in part by cooperating with Team Trump.
His supporters even wore hats that read “Make Colombia Great Again.”
Milei of Argentina has led the way, and it’s been noticed. Other Latin American countries who have since turned to the right or at least the center in elections: Chile, Peru, Honduras, Bolivia and Costa Rica. Venezuela is a question mark and the jury is still out; it hasn’t had an election, but things may be looking up there economically (see this) after the Maduro capture.
And of course Cuba hangs in the balance:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a fresh round of sanctions on the Cuban regime on Tuesday.
Rubio designated five entities generating revenue for the current Cuban regime, including three associated with the previously designated Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A. (GAESA), and one member of the extended Castro family. …
Rubio’s Tuesday announcement expands upon what was already the most significant package of U.S. sanctions on Cuban entities in decades.
Open thread 6/23/2026
Note on comments
I’m taking my time to implement a new process for comments, studying the alternatives as well as collecting data on trolls and bots. So there won’t be a change today, although there probably will be one some time this week or next. I’m still not sure, so don’t worry about it for now.
But at the moment my leading candidate for the new comment process should be very easy for regular commenters here. Just fill in the information you’ve been using right along: username and email address, even if the email address is fake; as long as it’s the email address you’ve been using to comment here right along, there shouldn’t be any difficulty. Apparently I can grandfather all the previous commenters in and there won’t be a problem. Your very first comment under the new system will be held in moderation until it’s approved. That could take a few hours, but after that first comment you can comment as before and don’t have to register or go through the process again.
I will make an announcement prior to instituting the new policy and I’ll explain once more.
Say buh-bye to Starmer
And hello to Andy Burnham.
Starmer showed more emotion in his leavetaking than I’m aware of him showing before in public life. But I think he may be the only one crying:
Sir Keir Starmer choked up as he announced his resignation as UK prime minister Monday — less than two years after the Labour Party stormed to a landslide general election win.
Starmer, 63, set out a timetable to stand down after coming under mounting pressure following last month’s local elections, in which the governing Labour Party lost over 1,000 seats.
The prime minister announced his intention to step down after admitting the Labour Party was questioning whether he could lead it into the next general election, which must be held before July 2029 …
This represents a change of personnel rather than anything else:
Andy Burnham, the former Greater Manchester mayor, is the overwhelming favorite to succeed Starmer.
He defeated Reform UK by almost 20 percentage points in last week’s by-election in the pro-Brexit northwest England constituency of Makerfield. …
Starmer’s popularity has plunged after repeated missteps and U-turns on policies such as welfare reform, as well as his disastrous decision to appoint Peter Mandelson, a scandal-tarnished friend of Jeffrey Epstein, as Britain’s ambassador to Washington.
The Labour government has also failed to deliver promised economic growth and ease a longstanding cost-of-living crisis.
And yet, Labour will remain in charge. And who is Andy Burnham?:
Until last week, Burnham had been the Mayor of Manchester, Britain’s fifth largest city, for about a decade. He stepped down from that role to stand in a local by-election last week, easily clinching the seat in Makerfield, Greater Manchester, to become the local Member of Parliament in the House of Commons.
This was almost certainly no coincidence; Burnham stepped down and ran for the seat in order to pave the way for replacing Starmer. The seat he won makes it interesting:
Burnham’s recent victory in the Makerfield by-election was significant not only as it cleared his potential path to the premiership, however, but because he won decisively in exactly the type of constituency Labour has struggled to hold onto in recent years.
The seat is predominantly white British, traditionally working-class, post-industrial and voted heavily to leave the European Union in the 2016 “Brexit” referendum. Communities like Makerfield across the U.K. were considered Labour heartlands for decades, but they have become increasingly contested as many voters drift toward right-wing, populist parties such as Reform UK.
Burnham has spent years positioning himself as a viable alternative to Starmer, criticizing Labour’s leadership at moments of weakness while carefully cultivating his own national profile.
How Burnham would differ from Starmer as a national — and international leader — isn’t exactly clear.
Indeed. My guess is that it’s mostly a stylistic difference:
[Supporters] portray him as an authentic voice for post-industrial Britain — a man who understands communities that feel neglected by London. His “everyman” presentation and his easy communication style, they argue, contrasts with the rigidness and technocratic approach to politics that former government lawyer Starmer never managed to shed.
Critics argue, however, that Burnham has failed to make clear his views on some of the most defining issues of the day.
And that is no accident.