Tag: news

We Didn’t Start the Fire: 1963

On By somegeektoldme@gmail.comIn History, Music, PeopleLeave a comment

I was thinking the other day about creating a new topic for this blog, since it’s difficult to maintain the moniker of being a trend setter. Luckily, I realised that I could always go back to look forward, and what better way to do that than using the way-back machine to travel to 1963.

That’s right, boys and girls, Some Geek Told Me’s: We Didn’t Start the Fire is back again. And just like observing the BFG with a telescope, the end is slowly coming into view. Please look up these previous uncelebrated posts:

We Didn’t Start the Fire: The Beginning 

We Didn’t Start the Fire: 1948-1949.

We Didn’t Start the Fire: 1950

We Didn’t Start the Fire: 1951

We Didn’t Start the Fire: 1952

We Didn’t Start the Fire: 1953

We Didn’t Start the Fire: 1954

We Didn’t Start the Fire: 1955

We Didn’t Start the Fire: 1956

We Didn’t Start the Fire: 1957

We Didn’t Start the Fire: 1958

We Didn’t Start the Fire: 1959

We Didn’t Start the Fire: 1960

We Didn’t Start the Fire: 1961

We Didn’t Start the Fire: 1962

Since you’re paying attention and you’re clever—getting at least 10 hours of sleep and eating your vegetables—you know we are going to explore the historical references in Billy Joel’s We Didn’t Start the Fire. With the World Cup playing in the background, let’s dive into it!

Credit: Hazelwoods

Pope Paul 

Pope Paul refers to Cardinal Giovanni Montini, who was elected to be the 262nd pope of the Catholic Church on 21st June 1963, and took the name Paul VI. Pope Paul was an Italian who led large reforms of the Catholic Church, which included reorganising the Roman Curia (The organisation that administers the affairs of the Church), opening more interfaith dialogue, imposing a mandatory retirement for bishops aged 75 years, restructuring the system of Holy Orders, introducing a new Mass, and was the first pope to visit six continents.

He died on 6th August 1978, was beatified in 2014, and canonised in 2018. A modern example is very difficult to explain; it’s not like…I’m messing with you, sorry. A modern example is Pope Leo XIV, who became the 267th pope in 2025.

Pope Paul VI. Credit: Unknown photographer

Malcolm X

Born Malcolm Little, and later El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, Malcolm X was an American civil rights activist, as well as an important Muslim leader. Being a non-American, Malcolm X was once described to me as Magento to Martin Luther King Jr.’s Professor X; both wanting the same thing, but going about it in different ways.

1963 was a controversial year for Malcolm X, which involved some negative comments about President Kennedy’s assassination, which led to censorship from the Nation of Islam (NOI); widespread media presence; his growing feud with NOI leader Elijah Muhammad; criticising other civil rights leaders, creating speeches, like “Message to the Grassroots” in Detroit or his interview at Berkley.

For a contemporary equivalent of Malcolm X, I’m not sure how to quantify that. Would this be for the United States or worldwide? Does it just cover Black civil rights, or LGBTQIA+ and women as well, or any civil rights? Every country, even New Zealand, has civil rights issues; however, if you look for them, you’ll always find some amazing activists campaigning for them.

Malcolm X, circa 1963. Credit: Three Lions/Hulton Archive/Getty Image

British politician sex 

Get ready, because this one is a cracker! British politician sex sounds like a popular university band, but it’s far more interesting and depressing. Basically, this scandal has become known as the Profumo Affair, named after John Profumo. At the time, Profumo was married, as well as being a Member of Parliament for Stratford-on-Avon, and the Secretary of State for War (The title has changed to Defence Secretary) in the British Government, which at the time, was ruled by the Conservative Party, under the helm of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan.

In 1961, a 46-year-old Profumo met 19-year-old model Christine Keeler at a party and began a brief affair, which lasted for an unknown time. Keeler was later involved with other men, like Yevgeny Ivanov, who was a Soviet naval attaché. A shooting outside the house she was staying at drew the attention of MI5. They arrested the shooter, which drew Keeler into the public spotlight, and MI5 started to investigate her. Stephen Ward was also a player in the scandal, having a connection to Keeler and Ivanov.

Eventually, the affair with Profumo was revealed to Parliament and the public, highlighting the Profumo-Keeler-Ivanov connection. The fallout of this resulted in some trials, as well as Prumo lying to the House of Commons; both Prumo and Macmillan resigned in 1963; the Conservative Party lost the general election in 1964; Keeler was sentenced to nine months for perjury; Ivanov was recalled to Moscow; and Ward committed suicide before his trial could begin.

For modern politician sex scandals, get a world map, blind fold yourself and throw a dart at it. You’ll pretty much be guaranteed to hit a country that could give you an example.

John Profumo and Christine Keeler. Credit: Getty Images/PA

JFK blown away

You don’t need to be Batman or Sherlock Holmes to understand this one. On 22nd November 1963, President John F. Kennedy was travelling in an open-top limousine in Dallas, Texas. Accompanying him was his wife, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, Texas Governor John Connally, Governor Connally’s wife, Nellie Connally, and the driver, Secret Service agent William Greer.

At 12:30 p.m., President Kennedy was shot on the top of his head and in his neck, along with Governor Connally, who was also wounded. Kennedy was taken to Parkland Memorial Hospital, but by 1 pm, he was dead. Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for the murder of Police Officer J. D. Tippit, about an hour later, and then also charged with Kennedy’s murder. Only two days later, Oswald was murdered by nightclub owner Jack Ruby.

Like Flat Earth, Kennedy’s assassination has been the first step for many conspiracy theorists into a more unhinged world. Sadly, assassinating world leaders is not a new concept, just ask Julius Caesar. However, some notable modern examples of (ex)world leaders being assassinated include Shinzo Abe (2022), Jovenel Moïse (2021), Idriss Déby Itno (2021), João Bernardo Vieira (2009), Benazir Bhutto (2007), Rafik Hariri (2005), Zoran Đinđić (2003), and Laurent-Désiré Kabila (2001).

Texas Governor John Connally adjusts his tie (foreground) as President and Mrs. Kennedy, in a pink outfit, settled in rear seats, prepared for motorcade into city from airport in Dallas, Nov. 22, 1963. After a few speaking stops, the President was assassinated in the same car. Credit:Bettmann / Getty Images.

What else do I have to say? 

‘Nuff said on this one, though we still have 12 more years to cover.

So for 1963, we covered a pope, a civil rights activist, a politician’s sex scandal, and the assassination of a US president. This was a short one, but from here on out, we’ll be skipping years, according to the lyrics, as they stop going from year by year. Sounds confusing, but it will all make sense. Maybe.

And that brings this week’s rant from a middle-aged, white, straight man, living in the South Pacific, to a close. Thanks again for reading, following, and subscribing to Some Geek Told Me. Also, you should check out the world’s worst social media accounts on Twitter and Mastodon, though I don’t even know why they exist at all; they are so terrible.

Please don’t forget to walk your dog, read a banned book, watch more World Cup games, and I’ll see you next week for my Supergirl Movie Preview.

2026 FIFA World Cup: Fanatical football frenzy

On By somegeektoldme@gmail.comIn Sports

World Cup tournaments are outrageous and insane, and there’s always one on the horizon, regardless of the sport. As keen supporters of my idiotic account would know, my love for rugby and the Rugby World Cup is legendary. However, that blog post is for next year, so instead, I’ll go on to discuss another World Cup that I love, the OG: The FIFA World Cup.

Far better journalists and pundits have already written about the largest single-sport tournament, this side of the Asteroid Belt; however, it’s my turn to have a crack at it. This foolish guide to the beautiful game’s ultimate prize is just that: a guide. I’m excited for the tournament, along with UMC1 and UMC2, but as my wife…well, not so much.

So, without further waiting for the paint in the outdoor toilet to dry, let’s get on with the breakdown of the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Hook it straight into my veins!

Credit: FIFA

On 11th June 2026, the 23rd edition of the FIFA World Cup will start, and it will finish with the final on the 19th July.

Hosts:

This is the first time the World Cup will be co-hosted by three countries: Canada, the United States of America, and Mexico. However, the World Cup has already been co-hosted by two countries before, South Korea and Japan, in 2002. Coincidentally, this is Mexico’s third hosting role, having already done it in 1970 and 1986; with the United States’ second time as host, having done it in 1994; while this is Canada’s first time.

It’s also the first time the format has been expanded to 48 teams and 12 pool groups, up from 32 teams and 8 pool groups in 2022. This means there will be an additional round where some third-placed teams from their pool can also qualify for the next round. I’m very interested to see how that plays out.

Between the three countries, 104 matches will be played, covering 16 cities and venues. I have also discovered that many stadiums will change their names during the tournament, due to various FIFA policies and regulations, so they may have alternative names.

In Canada we have:

  • Vancouver: BC Place is a multi-sport venue that can seat 54,500 people. It’s also home to the Vancouver Whitecaps. BC Place will host seven matches: five pool stage matches and two knock-out matches.
  • Toronto: BMO Field is home to Toronto FC and is another multi-sport venue. It can hold 45,000 people and will host five pool stage matches and one knock-out match.

For the United States we have:

  • Dallas: AT&T Stadium seats 94,000 people and is home to the Dallas Cowboys (NFL), along with other events. It will host nine games, which include five pool stage games, three knock-out games, and a semi-final.
  • East Rutherford: This is a weird one for me, because MetLife Stadium is in New Jersey, but it’s the home to both the New York Giants and New York Jets. MetLife Stadium can hold 82,500 fans, and will host five pool stage games, two knock-out games, and the final.
  • Atlanta: Known as the Mercedes-Benz Stadium, it is a multi-sport venue, home to the NFL’s Atlanta Falcons. This stadium will host five pool stage games, two knock-out games, and a semi-final. The stadium’s capacity is 75,000.
  • Kansas City: Arrowhead Stadium seats 73,000 spectators and is home to the Kansas City Chiefs (NFL). It will host six matches, covering four pool stage games, a knock-out match and a quarter-final.
  • Houston: NRG Stadium is home to the Houston Texans (NFL) and has a capacity of 72,000. NRG Stadium will host five pool stage games and two knock-out games.
  • Santa Clara: Levi’s Stadium can seat 71,000 fans, and is home to the San Francisco 49ers (NFL). It will host five pool stage matches and one knock-out match.
  • Los Angeles: We will remain in California, as we have SoFi Stadium, which is the dual home to the Los Angeles Rams and Los Angeles Chargers. It can hold 70,000 people and will host five pool stage games, two knock-out games, and a quarter-final.
  • Philadelphia: Lincoln Financial Field is the home field of the Philadelphia Eagles (NFL) and can seat 69,000 people. Lincoln Financial Field will host five pool stage matches and one knock-out match.
  • Seattle: Lumen Field can hold 69,000 fans and is home to the Seattle Seahawks (NFL) and Seattle Sounders FC. It will host four pool stage games, one knock-out game, and one quarter-final.
  • Boston: Gillette Stadium is a multi-sport venue and home to the New England Patriots (NFL) and New England Revolution FC. It’s going to host five pool stage games, one knock-out game, and one quarter-final.
  • Miami: For the last stadium in the United States, we have Hard Rock Stadium. It is the home field of the Miami Dolphins (NFL) and seats 65,000 spectators. Hard Rock Stadium will host four pool stage matches, one knock-out match, one quarter-final, and the bronze medal match.

For Mexico we have:

  • Mexico City: Estadio Azteca is a famous football stadium, having hosted the 1970 and 1986 World Cup Finals, as well as being the venue where Diego Maradona scored two famous goals in the quarter-final against England at the 1986 tournament. Estadio Azteca can seat 83,000 people, and will host the opening pool stage match, along with two more pool stage matches, and two knock-out matches.
  • Monterrey: Estadio BBVA is home to CF Monterrey and can hold 53,500 fans. Estadio BBVA will also feature three pool stage matches and one knock-out match.
  • Guadalajara: Estadio Akron is our final venue, and it is CD Guadalajara’s home ground. Estadio Akron can seat 48,000 people, and will also host four pool stage matches.

Teams

Like I said earlier, this is the first time there are 48 teams, across 12 groups. The draw looks like this:

Group A: Mexico, South Africa, Korea Republic (South Korea), and Czechia (Czech Republic).

Group B: Canada, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Qatar, and Switzerland.

Group C: Brazil, Morocco, Haiti, and Scotland.

Group D: United States of America, Paraguay, Australia, and Türkiye.

Group E: Germany, Curaçao, Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast), and Ecuador.

Group F: The Netherlands, Japan, Sweden, and Tunisia.

Group G: Belgium, Egypt, Iran, and New Zealand (YES!!!)

Group H: Spain, Cabo Verde, Saudi Arabia, and Uruguay.

Group I: France, Senegal, Iraq, and Norway.

Group J: Argentina (defending world champions), Algeria, Austria, and Jordan.

Group K: Portugal, Congo DR, Uzbekistan, and Colombia.

Group L: England, Croatia, Ghana, and Panama.

Since the first tournament in 1930, I believe about 80 countries have tried to win the World Cup, but only eight have done it:

Brazil: 1958, 1962, 1970, 1994, and 2002.

Germany: 1954, 1974, 1990, and 2014.

Italy: 1934, 1938, 1982, and 2006.

Argentina: 1978, 1986, and 2022.

Uruguay: 1930 and 1950.

France: 1998 and 2018.

England: 1966

Spain: 2010

You may have noticed that the winners have only come from Europe, which is represented by UEFA (Union of European Football Associations), and South America, which is represented by CONMEBOL (South American Football Confederation). No team from North America, Asia, Africa, or Oceania have won the World Cup. The Women’s FIFA World Cup is another matter entirely.

Sadly, no Antarctic team has ever qualified for the World Cup. Tensions between penguins and seals have stood in their way. If they can overcome their prejudices, humans would never stand a chance.

Sorry, what’s that? Why should I care about the FIFA World Cup?

Easy. I’ve played many sports in my life, team sports and as an individual. Rugby League was the first team sport I ever played, and I still have a soft spot for it. I played Rugby, or Rugby Union to be accurate, for only a few years, but living where I am, it’s the biggest sport I support. However, football is the only team sport I’ve ever excelled at; I played for 25 years. I love football.

Now here’s something I haven’t shared with you before: when my birthday is. Well, it’s in June.

There are a few reasons why I enjoy having a birthday on a cold, damp, and often gloomy day in winter. One reason is that it marks the start of the All Blacks’ season. Additionally, every four years, I get to celebrate my birthday while watching World Cup games. Although there are rest days during the tournament, this year, there are several games scheduled on my birthday, and I’m stoked about it!

I love World Cups because I get to analyse the pools, predict which teams will move on, and guess who they would face next. This also means reading articles and news updates about the squads, and religiously checking draws, results, and table standings; along with previewing the games and deciding which pool games I want to see live, versus watching the highlights of games. This leads us to some key points about the World Cup: television coverage.

Because New Zealand is close to the International Date Line, we are around 12 hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time, depending on Daylight Saving Time. Being a sports fan in New Zealand means watching live sports outside the country often requires significant commitment, whether that’s staying up late or getting up at stupid o’clock.

Over the years, Football and Rugby World Cups would have been available to watch for free on public television, but the rise of streaming services and pay-for-view TV stations has altered the way we watch sport. For the 2026 FIFA World Cup, I think there are three different ways to watch it in New Zealand. If you can afford it, you can watch the games through Sky TV or TVNZ (Television New Zealand) for a fee.

However, because New Zealand has skin in the game this tournament, the first time since 2010, all of the New Zealand games are free to watch, along with a few random pool games, knock-out games, and one semi-final on TVNZ. The final is always free to air. I would love to watch as many matches as I can, but the prices for viewership are getting worse, so I don’t know. I saw my first World Cup Final when I was nine years old, and I have never missed one since.

But the silver lining is the highlights. Before the rise of the internet, especially YouTube, you needed to watch a special World Cup TV show, with a presenter who would introduce the day’s games and give you the highlights of the day. If there were three games on that day, then you would get three games’ worth of highlights. It would usually screen about 5 pm, depending on the time zone differences. Sometimes, it was about 10 pm, which made my parents very happy that their son was up watching the World Cup on a school night.

YouTube has all but eliminated these highlight shows, at least in New Zealand. I now make it a point to watch the highlights of every single World Cup game on YouTube, even if I don’t know the result of the game. Though to be fair, if I knew a game ended in a 0-0 all draw, I’d skip it sometimes. I’ll played in 0-0 draws, and they are painful.

Being married has also altered my World Cup experiences, which cover rugby and football. Getting ready for the World Cup as a supporter always means I need to prepare my wife. This will be my wife’s fourth FIFA World Cup with me, not counting men’s and women’s rugby, rugby league, and cricket World Cups or the Women’s FIFA World Cup.

Last week, I was talking to her about the first round of matches, and she mentioned that she couldn’t name a single international football player who is currently still playing. After a 15-minute discussion, I discovered she wasn’t lying. How does she get through the day without knowing that?

Anyway, she isn’t her first World Cup with me, so she knows that she will lose her loving and supportive husband for 5-6 weeks, who is replaced with a sports nut, who only wants to discuss facts and games involving the World Cup with her. Her responses to my very important World Cup information involve:

“I didn’t know that.”

“Wow.”

“Cool.”

“Thanks for telling me.”

“Hmmmm.”

My wife also does a lot of nodding, as in she’s pretending that she’s actively listening to me, but in reality, she just wants me to shut up sometimes. She doesn’t care about the World Cup, as she has told me before. In saying that, she does listen to me discuss the World Cup, not out of love for football, but out of love for me. That’s romantic, isn’t it? Talking about sports to your non-sporting spouse is always entertaining.

I’ve got UMC1 and UMC2 pumped for it, so I’ve succeeded as a parent. I’m looking forward to viewing some amazing goals, terrific saves, appalling offside calls, magnificent set-pieces, passionate fans, bone-shaking tackles, resignations of managers, scandals, and, if I’m honest, some own goals.

So that’s it. Will you be watching or following the World Cup? Who are you supporting? Who do you think will win? As always, please let me know. Some reminders for what’s coming up on this popular blog over the next few weeks include the Supergirl Movie Preview/Review, my mid-Winter annual break, and my upcoming 300th blog post, which I only learnt about last week.

Thanks once again for reading, following, and subscribing to Some Geek Told Me. Don’t forget to walk your dog, read a banned book, go watch some World Cup games, and I’ll see you next week.

Is it possible to review a movie without ever watching it?

On By somegeektoldme@gmail.comIn Movies, People

Using the way-back machine, let’s travel back to 2022, where I wrote about various reviews of two television shows that I hadn’t seen at the time. I thought it was overdue to revisit this concept, but instead of writing about another television show, we’re going to look at a movie. This sounds like another excellent idea, like fire-proof matches, or ejector seats in helicopters.

We are spoiled for choice, as we are surrounded by a collection of motion pictures, whether they are shown at the cinema or through various streaming services. What an age to live in!

However, considering her spouse, the U.S. president, the Board of Peace chairman, the winner of the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize, the recent recipient of a hand-me-down Nobel Peace Prize, and convicted felony, Donald Trump, has been busy bombing Iran, I thought it would be fitting to look at Melania Trump’s movie, Melania.

Let’s establish something first. I can think of no conceivable reason why I would ever watch, Melania. Seriously, I don’t want to watch it. If I were on a long-haul flight, and I had no book, with the movie stuck on repeat, then maybe. A big maybe.

So, how does someone review a movie that they have no intention of ever watching? The answer is very simple; I read what other people have said. I had a staff meeting about this subject, and the consensus was that we should try to be fair and neutral. However, sometimes we can be biased, and today is one of those days.

Melania premiered on 29th January 2026, with a budget of US$40 million, and has made US$16.6 million worldwide, which technically makes it a flop. From what I understand, the film covers Melania’s movements and experiences around the last 20 days leading up to the second inauguration of everybody’s favourite president, Donald Trump. Sounds action-packed stuff, right?

And with that, let’s make it so!

‘Melania’ movie posters vandalized across LA. Credit: Fox 11 News

I enjoy reading humorous reviews as much as the next person, so this was a fun experience for me, unlike smelling an open bag of Sour Cream and Chives from 500 m away. Gross.

Because you demand nothing but the best from this wayward literary venture, I have collected some of the funniest reviews for Melania and have tried to group them accordingly, because I can, and it looks neat. Also, I am aware of review bombing, so thank you in advance for the heads up.

Rotten Tomatoes: (Accurate for 5th March 2026)

11% Tomatometer

98% Audience Score

Coleman Spilde: Salon.com 7th February 2026

This documentary doesn’t absolve any sins; it highlights them. “Melania” taunts the viewer and takes glee in the assumption that they can’t do anything about it.

Joseph Robinson: Fish Jelly Films (YouTube) 6th February 2026

More PR campaign than personal portrait, Melania is an astonishingly dull documentary that masquerades as a glamorous immigrant story while offering little insight beyond carefully curated image-making.

Robert Denerstein: Denerstein Unleashed 4th February 2026

By any critical standards I’m familiar with, I’ll tell you that Melania isn’t much of a documentary; it’s more like a plush Life Styles of the Rich and Famous episode that bleeds into a chorus of booming triumphalism centering on Trump’s inauguration.

Amy Nicholson: Los Angeles Times 3rd February 2026

Melania” plays like a sizzle reel for her post-political (post-spousal?) future career in which she may rouse herself to be a guest judge on a reality competition show.

Calum Cooper: Cinerama Film 3rd February 2026

Melania is shambolic, putrid, pitiful garbage: A brazen, awkward, irredeemable infomercial that ignores truth and scrutiny in favour of performative humility. It’s not just wretched – it’s offensive to the collective intelligence of the human race.

Donald Clarke: Irish Times 31st January 2026

No good impression emerges of the former Slovenian model. No bad impression emerges either. Ratner’s film achieves, rather, a sort of passive distance – as you might get by pointing a camera, for close to two hours, at a waterfall or a wheat field.

IMDb: (Accurate for 5th March 2026)

1.4/10 rating

Sleepin_Dragon: 1/10 rating 30th January 2026

I can’t pretend I sat through this to the end. There was only so much I could take, and as we left the cinema, the screen itself was empty. That probably says everything I need to say about this dire ….movie.

meltymark: 1/10 rating 30th January 2026

I’m not a political person, politics are disgusting to me on both sides of the isle and I understand Melania is not a politician and deserves some respect and dignity like all other people… but

This was not only boring, but it was also incredibly painful to watch. It reminded me of the feeling you get when a boss or person in authority is bragging about themselves and you have to just take it and act like it doesn’t repulse you and your body language and whole being just can’t take it to the point of it making you physically ill.

andrew-lundberg-1970: 1/10 rating 31st January 2026

Everything about this film is pure tragedy, and not in a meaningful or intentional way. It’s dull, self-important, and completely devoid of insight, as if it mistakes moodiness for depth and emptiness for sophistication. The pacing drags, the storytelling goes nowhere, and whatever point it thinks it’s making never arrives. If I could give it less than one star, I would. Don’t waste your time, your money, or your patience on this hollow mess.

mbvqp: 1/10 rating 1st February 2026

Melania” is an utter WASTE OF TIME and MONEY-hands down the WORST MOVIE I’ve ever seen. Its disjointed plot, uninspired performances, and cringeworthy ridiculous dialogue make it a tedious chore to sit through. Rather than offering insight, it delivers a bland, utterly uninspiring experience that adds absolutely nothing to the broader discourse. Please do yourself an enormous favour and SKIP THIS DISASTER entirely. You’ll be glad that you did!

rppratings: 1/10 rating 5th February 2026

Melania is less of a movie and more of a painfully long exercise in boredom. Calling it hollow would be generous – this film is a glossy, lifeless shell with absolutely nothing inside. It drags, it stalls, it goes nowhere, and somehow still feels longer than its runtime. Watching paint dry would’ve delivered more emotional payoff.

The “story,” if you can even call it that, is buried under endless slow shots, awkward silence, and a level of stiffness that makes mannequins look expressive. Every moment that should feel revealing or meaningful instead feels cold, staged, and completely devoid of humanity. It’s not mysterious – it’s empty.

The dialogue is flat, the pacing is brutal, and the entire thing feels like a stretched-out PR video nobody asked for. By the end, I wasn’t frustrated, I wasn’t moved – I was just stunned that something so expensive-looking could be so painfully pointless.

Melania isn’t just bad – it’s spectacularly, monumentally dull. A beautiful wrapper around absolutely nothing. A total waste of time.

JoshuaT-253: 1/10 rating 19th February 2026

There is nothing harder to describe than a movie that is simply dull and uninteresting. I could sit here and describe how nothing happens for close to 80% of the time. Just a lady sitting around waiting for things to happen. She then travels from place to place multiple times in great and tedious detail with nothing to show for it than more waiting to travel to yet another place. It has almost zero content, nothing to hold interest or to connect with at all.

Other sources:

Xan Brooks: The Guardian

30th January 2026

…No doubt there is a great documentary to be made about Melania Knauss, the ambitious model from out of Slovenia who married a New York real-estate mogul and then found herself cast in the role of a latter-day Eva Braun, but the horrific Melania emphatically isn’t it. It’s one of those rare, unicorn films that doesn’t have a single redeeming quality. I’m not even sure it qualifies as a documentary, exactly, so much as an elaborate piece of designer taxidermy, horribly overpriced and ice-cold to the touch and proffered like a medieval tribute to placate the greedy king on his throne.

Natasha Jokic: BuzzFeed

31st January 2026

…Last night, I left an empty chickpea can on my counter. When I came back 30 minutes later, small, black bugs had swarmed the tin and were crawling over my sink. I would rather relive that moment a hundred times over than have to watch another minute of the movie Melania.

Lauren Collins: The New Yorker

…Cameras followed Melania in the twenty days leading up to Trump’s second Inauguration. About nineteen of them seem to have been devoted to planning Melania’s big event, a candlelit dinner for MAGA backers and bagmen, including Bezos. Chef Chris’s menu opens with a “golden egg and caviar,” an event planner says. At this point, you think that “Melania” has broken the fourth wall, that the far-too-obvious symbolism is about to be acknowledged and then punctured or dismissed. But, no, the gilded hors d’œuvres are for real, even if, as a metaphor, they are at best incomplete. With “Melania,” you get the brittle shell, but none of the rich internal goo that makes for a compelling portrait.

Piper B.: Common Sense Media

February 2026

…People will tell you to remember that this is just a documentary and that’s why it’s boring, but that’s just plain wrong. This documentary shows no historical value other than “my husband became the president.” I would not show this to my children because I see no role model. If I want to show my kids a documentary, I’d choose one with a more empowering figure, someone they can look up to and strive to be.

Amy Nicholson: The Los Angeles Times

2nd February 2026

…I cannot recommend “Melania” as a good movie or even an interesting one. It has the feel of a soothingly looped AI screen saver, a trance-inducing spell where nothing matters so long as your high heels aren’t hurting your feet. Yet against all odds, there is a truth in her SUV-to-tarmac-to-SUV-to-tarmac insularity. Future historians will be glad to have “Melania” as a lens into this moment in time. Like everything she touches, it’s a costly artifact.

Owen Gleiberman: Variety

30th January 2026

…Melania is a documentary that never comes to life. It’s a “portrait” of the First Lady of the United States, but it’s so orchestrated and airbrushed and stage-managed that it barely rises to the level of a shameless infomercial. Is it cheesy? At moments, but mostly it’s inert. It feels like it’s been stitched together out of the most innocuous outtakes from a reality show. There’s no drama to it. It should have been called “Day of the Living Tradwife.

Vince Mancini: GQ

2nd February 2026

Melania many go down in history as one of the least revealing documentaries ever made. But if you’ve never watched the First Lady get on and off a plane, Brett Ratner’s got a movie for you.

Samuel Clench: News.com.au

1st February 2026

…Melania is like a horror film with nothing scary in it, or a crime thriller with no twists, or an action film with no fighting. It is a documentary with no interest in exploring its central figure beneath her most superficial level. It is incomprehensibly empty.

But I think the best review I have discovered is this:

Greg: Cockbuster Video

30 January 2026

Couldn’t hear what the hell was going on during the film because the whole theater was filled with dudes in red hats sucking each other off load af.

Now, in the interests of being fair, not every single Melania review is negative; some, in fact, praise the film. Different strokes for different folks, though. Should you watch the film or give it a pass? I would give it a hard pass, not even to watch it, to decry it.

It goes for a general rule of thumb for any comic, book, movie, TV show, computer game, music, chip flavour or documentary; don’t listen to anybody else’s review or opinion. If you want to experience a product, go and experience it yourself; that way, you’ll always know. If you like it, then praise the living hell out of it; if not, then go the other way.

To quote one of the 90’s greatest arse-kickers, “The power is yours!”

And that, dear friends, brings another jam-packed blog post filled with mystery to a close. Also, regardless of what happens with Trump’s non-war with Iran, Iran is due to play all of its group games of the FIFA World Cup in the United States, with the first game against us, New Zealand, on 15th June. Who knows if Trump will let them into the country or if there will be a boycott? Who knows?

Thanks again for reading, following, and subscribing to Some Geek Told Me. Please don’t forget to walk your dog, read a banned book, go watch The Creator, and I’ll see you next week.

The Epstein Files: The stain of accountability

On By somegeektoldme@gmail.comIn People, Politics, Social Media

Hi, and welcome back. After last week’s mammoth undertaking of writing six entries for We Didn’t Start the Fire: 1961, I thought I might take it easy and discuss something light, like the Epstein Files. My wife asked me what I was blogging about this week, so I told her. “That’s a can of worms, isn’t it?” she replied. It certainly is.

I know, it’s not the most positive and uplifting story, now is it? However, this blog has been rattling around in my mind for some time now, so I apologise because I needed to get it out.

As usual with the hard-hitting journalism you have come to expect from yours truly, today’s blog post will not cover Jeffery Epstein per se, as in his crimes. His convictions for sex trafficking and child sex offences have been thoroughly covered and documented by seasoned and professional writers and reporters, not some part-time blogger from the South Pacific.

No, I would like to discuss the obvious aspects of the Epstein Files, which I believe need attention. Clear? Great, let’s see how I go with this.

Redacted documents are shown in a photo illustration in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 19, after the Justice Department began releasing records from its investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

Even in New Zealand, the Epstein Files continue to garner attention. Case in point, with my ugly mug. Now, if you don’t know what the Epstein Files are, then you have been either living a lonely lifestyle or living with the bliss of ignorance, and I don’t know which is better.

The best way for me to explain the Epstein Files is, sadly, to go back to Epstein himself. In a nutshell, for decades, Epstein was a high roller investor who, among other things, operated a sex trafficking business, where he located underage boys and girls, as well as adult women, and transported them to his ultra-elite friends/associates for sex crimes. Epstein died of suicide in 2019, while awaiting trial.

As for the Epstein Files, here is another crash course. They are a collection of records, numbering over six million documents, that relate to Epstein’s activities and crimes. They contain videos, documents, images, and emails that connect Epstein to some of his ultra-elite club of mates. There is more to it, but these are the bare bones of the situation.

Recently, the United States Department of Justice released over three million documents from the Epstein Files, where some were heavily redacted, while others were not redacted enough. With me so far?

Some of the names in the files were not a surprise, because they have been linked to Epstein for decades. The media and the public have known about the connections, just not what those connections were exactly. Essentially, just what their relationship to Epstein actually involved.

In the public court, any person named in the Epstein Files is guilty of sex crimes. However, before people are lynched because their name appeared in the Epstein Files, it pays to remember two things: under the law, people are innocent until proven guilty; and just because someone’s name is mentioned in the files, it does not mean they are automatically guilty.

To my understanding, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and even Pikachu were mentioned in the Epstein Files. However, at least to me, there is a colossal difference between being mentioned in Epstein-related emails, like the three above, versus being connected to Epstein’s activities, or at the very least, being in some way associated with him.

Epstein survivors are seen holding photos of their younger selves, as some of them recite their ages when they met first met Jeffrey Epstein in a video from World Without Exploitation published on November 16, 2025. (World Without Exploitation)

Over the last two weeks, we have seen several people resign from their jobs because of internal and external pressure applied to them over their connection to Epstein, no matter how innocent, benign, or small that connection was. Just the fact that they were in some way linked to Jeffrey Epstein means they are trying to save their image by resigning. Fair enough.

Some of these people I feel quite bad for, as they may not have done anything wrong. You are welcome to disagree with me, but I haven’t finished my rant. There’s another group of people I feel sorry for, and that is the survivors. Which, of course, guides us to the other names in the files; the real names of the people we really should care about.

Like the difference between being mentioned in emails versus being involved with Epstein’s activities, there is also a difference between being mentioned three times in the files versus being mentioned 3,000, 30,000, or even 300,000 times. For me, it’s the number of times they are mentioned in the files, which is the concern.

Two people could be mentioned in the files, with one person being mentioned four times, while the other person’s name appears 38,000 times. In my opinion, out of the two, I would want to know why the second person is mentioned 38,000 times in the files connected to a children’s sex trafficking network.

Should the person whose name is mentioned five times in the files be investigated? Sure, by all means, yes. However, before we do that, we should talk to the person mentioned 38,000 times first.

This transition brings us to the bulk of my blog: Are any people ever going to be prosecuted, or at least investigated for possible sex crimes, related to the Epstein Files? I could be wrong about this, but Epstein’s operation lasted for decades, and in all of that time, only Epstein himself, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jean-Luc Brunel have been prosecuted over the crimes. In saying that, over the new information release, Thorbjørn Jagland (Former Norwegian prime minister) and Peter Mandelson (British politician) are now facing charges.

Sources: Getty Images; Medium; US House Oversight Committee
Graphic: Alex Leeds Matthews, CNN

The sheer scale of the operation, and the famous and ultra-rich people involved in it, just boggles my mind that it went on for so long. It’s a stain of accountability that the perpetrators of these crimes have managed, potentially, to hide their crimes behind wealth, titles, and friends, believing that laws and rules do not apply to them.

That, because of their positions in the world, their belief that they can prey on the most vulnerable members of our society, children, and suffer no consequences or punishment, flies in the face of every adult trying to teach children about consequences.

The Epstein Files remind us of the worst of humanity, on what fame, money and power can bring to a person, to create a concept that they are untouchable; beyond the law, because laws don’t apply to them. They are like a real cabal of supervillains that Batman or Daredevil have finally unmasked to the world.

It also reflects the best of humanity. This is taken in the form of the survivors, their families, and other people supporting them, and advocating for justice, regardless of who and what they are up against.

They are some of the new role models for the 21st century; they are unrelenting in their crusade for the truth, and they are bringing all of the people involved with Epstein’s sex trafficking activities to justice. Because if we can’t, then what’s the point of retelling stories of good triumphing over evil, if we can’t make it a reality?

Maybe I’ve read far too many comic books and watched far too many movies, but I still have hope for us as a society that these people will not be able to hide and cover up their crimes, no matter who they are. Even though a lot of things still amaze me in this world, it’s staggering that releasing survivors’ names and redacting possible abusers’ names, somehow, in the eyes of the DOJ, is bringing justice to the matter, and not the other way around.

Again, just because someone’s name has appeared in the files does not mean they are guilty of anything; it’s the number of times they are mentioned that is worth our attention. Because of this, at the very least, these people whose names appear thousands of times, whether they were abusers or enablers, need to be investigated.

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, younger brother of Britain’s King Charles, formerly known as Prince Andrew, leaves Aylsham Police Station on a vehicle, on the day he was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, after the U.S. Justice Department released more records tied to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, in Aylsham, Britain, February 19, 2026. Photo: Phil Noble/Reuters

This web of corruption needs to be untangled, and this poses an interesting question: What if someone you have admired for years, for whatever reason, is directly linked to Epstein’s criminal activities? A few months ago, I saw a video with a woman on a panel with two other people, and she explained the reality of the situation. I can’t remember her exact words because I couldn’t find the clip again, but I’m going to paraphrase what she said, mixed with some of my own.

It shouldn’t matter whether we admire the people in the files or not, but the names of the abusers and enablers need to be released. Whether they are Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, actors, politicians, models, CEOs, scientists, musicians, writers, professors, or sports stars, it doesn’t matter; burn the whole house down. Release the names, or at the very least, law enforcement agencies around the world need to start doing something with the information, and to show people that these crimes will not go unpunished.

With the recent arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (Former Duke of York), it pays to wonder if his investigation will bring about more charges levelled against him, but also, will other abusers and enablers be taken down as well?

These horrible threads need to be followed, regardless of where they lead, whether to a CEO’s office or the Oval Office; this needs to happen, for the sake of our own collective morality. The world will never move on from the Epstein Files until every single abuser and enabler has been found, investigated, and if need be, prosecuted and convicted. Nothing, absolutely nothing short of this will be any closure to survivors and their families.

And after that wonderful and positive thought, I shall take my leave of you, amazing people. Thanks again for reading, following, and subscribing to Some Geek Told Me. Please don’t forget to walk your dog, read a banned book, keep watching the T20 Men’s Cricket World Cup, and I’ll see you next week for some running. Cool bananas.




The Six Nations Rugby Championship: The History

On By somegeektoldme@gmail.comIn Sports

Before I conjure up some more literary magic, I would like to take a fraction of your time to acknowledge some deaths.

1.) Over 30,000 Iranian civilians and anti-government demonstrators have been killed by the Iranian Republic Security Forces since December 2025, in what can only be described as massacres.

2.) Legendary comic book artist, Sal Buscema, died on 23rd January 2026, aged 89. He worked for multiple companies across his long career, having created fantastic characters like Rebecca and Brian Banner, Lady Deathstrike, Grandmaster, The Invaders, Hyperion, Helmut Zemo, U-Foes, Time Variance Authority, Rom the Space Knight, and the Wrecking Crew, among many others.

3.) The recent storm that hit the North Island of New Zealand has resulted in the deaths of nine people, through flash flooding and two landslides.

4.) The beloved actress and comedian Catherine O’Hara passed away on January 30, 2026. Among her many famous roles, my personal favourite was Cookie Fleck in Best In Show. O’Hara had the knack of making any character, especially the unlikable ones, very likeable.

I don’t have any inspiring things to say, other than my family and I are very sorry to hear of their deaths, and to send our condolences and deepest sympathies to their loved ones.

In New Zealand, both national and regional governments have numerous questions that require answers from the media, the public, and grieving families.

My thanks and apologies for bringing this up.

Moving on, I wrote another non-award-winning blog post last week regarding rugby, American football’s older and hotter sibling. I mentioned that I was going to discuss the greatest rugby tournament outside of the World Cup: The Six Nations Championship. I aim to provide my followers with things they didn’t request, except for the three followers this is written for. They know who they are.

So, like Fozzie and Kermit, we need to keep movin’ right along into The Six Nations Rugby Championship: The History. For all my non-rugby supporters, I’m sorry/not sorry. Prepare thyself!

Credit: Guinness Six Nations/Love Belfast

Every year, a fantastic rugby tournament begins that runs from February to April. It’s called the Six Nations Championship, or the Guinness Six Nations Championship, and it comes in three different flavours, Men’s, Women’s and Under-20s.

The Six Nations, as the tournament is commonly known, involves, get ready for it, six nations that are England, Wales, Scotland, France, Italy, and Ireland1. It’s one of the world’s oldest international tournaments.

Once again, I need to interject myself into something that I am actually writing. Since I’m an All Blacks supporter, it may have crossed your wonderful mind as to why I’m writing about the Six Nations. That is another superb question from you, you’re getting so good at this! I’ll do my best to give an over-complicated answer; nothing but the best on Some Geek Told Me.

The All Blacks compete in an annual tournament with three other countries (The Rugby Championship), but before that, it was with only two other countries (The Tri-Nations), which first started in 1996. I love watching and supporting the Rugby Championship, but it pales in comparison to the Six Nations.

Credit: Guinness Six Nations

For me, the Six Nations is the greatest rugby tournament outside of a World Cup, and this is coming from a New Zealander! As a kid, I was enthralled by learning about the tournament, which was called the Five Nations. Obviously, watching delayed coverage, or at the very least, highlights of the games from the other side of the planet, gave me a taste of how other countries played and managed rugby.

It was always interesting to see rugby from a different perspective, which included the size of the stadiums, the singing, respecting the kicker, the age and tradition of the tournament, as well as the rivalries. I soon discovered my love of the All Blacks also transferred into being curious about what our opponents were doing.

As time marched on, my fascination with the tournament became more defined, because as an All Blacks and Black Ferns supporter, following the Six Nations was logical; if your rivals smashed each other up in an annual competition, wouldn’t it be prudent to gauge how they are performing and to see what they’re up to?

Even now, as a fully-grown man-child, watching the Six Nations makes me ask two questions: Who do I want to win? or Who do I want to lose? It also poses more questions if one particular team is performing well: Could the All Blacks beat them in their current form? but also, If the Black Ferns played them next week, who would win? I love the Six Nations.

I’ve finished my interjection, so we’ll return to the spot where we left off. Thanks.

The tournament has a long, rich and proud history, so I’ll do my best to explain it properly. When discussing the Men’s tournament, it first began in 1883, when it was known as the Home Nations Championship2; which included England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. A few years later, an argument about whether a try should have been awarded resulted in the nations establishing the International Rugby Football Board, now known as World Rugby.

From what I understand, England was not happy that Wales, Scotland, and Ireland had formed a new club, and they refused to join. This hilarious incident meant that England was excluded from the tournament from 1888 to 1889, which in turn meant the tournament did not take place. However, by 1890, everything was worked out, and the tournament had restarted.

The format for the Hone Nations continued until 1910, when France was allowed to join the tournament. As you can guess, with an extra nation in the mix, management decided to change the name of the competition to the Five Nations Championship, because, you know, five nations were playing.

The First and Second World Wars meant that fielding international-level rugby players was a little difficult, along with the country being at war, so from 1915-1919 and 1940-1946, the tournament was not played. It’s worth noting that in 1932, France was banned from the competition because of rumours and allegations of various misconduct3 and they were only allowed to rejoin in 1939, but the Second World War prevented them from physically returning until 1947. 

From 1947, the Five Nations Championship marched on until 1999, because Italy was now asking to join the tournament. They were accepted, so in 2000, the Five Nations Championship was renamed again, thus becoming the Six Nations Championship, with the addition of Italy. France is the defending champion.

The 2025 Guinness Women’s Six Nations launch in London. Credit: Guinness Six Nations

The Women’s tournament followed the same trajectory as the Men’s, but the time period is smaller. The tournament started in 1996, which was named the Women’s Home Nations Championship, which included exactly the teams as you would imagine: England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland.

In its format, the tournament lasted three years, until in 1999, you guessed it, France was added to the tournament, changing the name to the Women’s Five Nations Championship. And because history likes to repeat things, this version of the competition lasted only three years, before Italy was introduced into the tournament in 2002, turning the Women’s Five Nations Championship into the Women’s Six Nations Championship. Bet you all of Trump’s orange makeup that you didn’t see that one coming. England won the tournament in 2025.

It is also interesting to note, that Spain played in the Five Nations and Six Nations tournaments from 2000 to 2006.

As for the Under-20s tournament, they started in 2004, but it was called the Six Nations Under 21s Championship, and this lasted until 2008, when they changed the age restriction, which allowed another tournament to have yet another name change. So, the Six Nations Under 21s Championship became the Six Nations Under 20s Championship. Nothing to see here, move along, move along. However, like the Men’s competition, France is the current holder of the title.

In the tournament, each team plays five games, alternating between home and away matches. The following year, the home advantage is reversed for each matchup. For example, the Men’s game between England and Scotland in 2025 took place in England, but in 2026, the England vs. Scotland game will be held in Scotland.

Just because I can, I’m going to list the stadiums that are used in the competition4:

England: Twickenham, London, seats 82,000

Wales: Principality Stadium, Cardiff seats 73,930

Scotland: Murrayfield, Edinburgh, seats 67,140

Ireland: Aviva Stadium, Dublin, seats 51,700

France: Stade de France, Paris, seats 81,330

Italy: Stadio Olimpico, Rome, seats 72,690

The points system for the Six Nations is standard, but with a few quirks:

  • A win gives a team 4 points. (Yay!)
  • A draw gives a team 2 points. (Oh, stink!)
  • A loss gives a team 0 points. (Oh, the shame!)

There are also bonus points to be awarded, which come in handy if teams have the same win/loss records.

  • Scoring four or more tries in a match, gives a team 1 extra point. (Yay again!)
  • Losing by 7 points or fewer, gives a team 1 extra point. (Sweet!)
  • If a team wins all of their games, which is called the Grand Slam, they are automatically given 3 extra points.

At the end of the fifth round, the team with the highest total on the points table wins the championship.

Many trophies are competed for during the different tournaments, which, ironically, is exactly what we will be discussing next week with The Six Nations Rugby Championship: Part 2. Cool bananas!

In my humble opinion, the Six Nations Championship is arguably one of the greatest annual sporting events on the planet, and if you ever get the chance to watch a game, do yourself a favour and do it.

Well, that’s it for another week. Do you follow the Six Nations? What’s your favourite moment? Who will win in 2026? As always, please let me know.

Please don’t forget to walk your dog, read a banned book, remember where you put your keys, and I’ll see you next week for the second and final blog post about the Six Nations Rugby Championship. The excitement is building!

1 When discussing Ireland, I am not referring to the Republic of Ireland, but the actual island of Ireland, which consists of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. At the international level, rugby is one of the few sports that represents all of Ireland, unlike football, which has Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland teams. This is reinforced with the cross-border flag for the Irish Rugby Football Union, which incorporates both countries, the Republic of Ireland (controlled by the Republic of Ireland) and Northern Ireland (controlled by the United Kingdom).

2 When discussing the Home Nations in rugby, it is in reference to England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, collectively known as the Home Nations.

3 France was accused of many things, but the main offence was fielding professional players, when at the time, rugby was an amateur sport. Rugby finally went professional in 1995.

4 France also has a second stadium that they sometimes use for the tournament. It’s the Stade Pierre-Mauroy, Villeneuve-d’Ascq, in Northern France. Its capacity is 50,180.

To control another country, or not to control another country, that is the question

On By somegeektoldme@gmail.comIn Geography, People, Politics

As fans of this highly informative blog will undoubtedly know, I’m somewhat of a fan of William Shakespeare’s work. I’ve talked about his work before on this beloved blog, but one day I will discuss the villains, because, in my humble opinion, there’s nothing greater than a Shakespearean villain.

Now, you could be sitting on public transportation as you read this, or maybe in the bathroom, and you would be forgiven if you think I’m going to talk about Shakespearean villains today. Alas, no, not today.

I’m bringing up the term because, once again, in my humble opinion, someone last weekend exhibited actions worthy of being called a Shakespearean villain.

Well, that’s not fair to Iago and Richard III, is it? I mean, they could challenge Trump to a battle of wits, but … oh, you know the rest.

I was honestly going to write a Tour of the Solar System post, but each time I looked at the news, the OCD in me wouldn’t let it go, so here we are.

Unless you have been living in a shoe, I’m discussing the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores by United States forces, after they attacked the capital, Caracas, on 3rd January. At the latest count, at least 57 people were killed in the attack. Like I said last week, it’s an interesting way to start 2026.

This also covers Trump claiming that the United States is going to “run” Venezuela, along with opening up its massive oil reserves and selling them, in addition to prosecuting Maduro in the United States court system.

I’m not here to debate the legality of what Trump has done, purely because I’m not an expert in international law. If I were, my topics would be far more exciting! Trump’s actions can be measured against the United Nations and/or any other international legal body. However, my Spidey-sense has been tripped, and is ringing like a school fire alarm.

Today’s rant will be of interest to roughly only 8% of my readers, but it’s about my hopes and fears regarding the situation.

Credit: Ferguson

Let’s start with the most obvious statement, which I’m going to repeat:

Venezuela is better off without Nicolás Maduro

I’m not going to sit here and list the crimes Maduro has committed against Venezuelans, as they are well documented. Along with former president, the late Hugo Chávez, Maduro has run Venezuela into the ground, and the shenanigans involving various Venezuelan presidential elections have also been well-reported.

So, I’m going to reinforce this point that Venezuela is better off without Nicolás Maduro. They are free of his extrajudicial killings and suicidal financial policies. This, of course, seamlessly brings us to my hopes for Venezuela, because I want to focus on the country first.

My hope for Venezuela is, quite simply, that Maduro’s removal will give them hope. Depending on how much money is created from the sale of the oil, if it happens, of course. Regardless, I hope it is pumped back into the country and its people.

I came across a social media post from a man in Venezuela who stated that people in the West do not understand what it was like living under Maduro’s regime, as it was a time of great despair. He mentioned that if Trump wants to take their oil, he can, because at least the money would bring some financial benefit to the country.

That’s tough to read and argue against.

Venezuela is better off without Nicolás Maduro

My other hope for Venezuela is with the new President, Delcy Rodríguez, the former Vice President. Assuming the US government “allows” her to function in this role, or the opposition leader, María Corina Machado, does not take the job, or if she is just waiting for Maduro’s return, there are a lot of expectations and responsibilities now resting on Rodríguez’s shoulders.

Rodríguez has been involved in previous policies, but not all of them, that have crippled the country, so she’s in a rare position to redeem herself and the government, to Latin America, the world, but mainly to Venezuela. Her government can craft new laws that will lift Venezuelans, and not continue with the same or more Maduro-style policies that have damaged the country.

With Maduro’s removal, there is a possibility that the country could divide and fall into civil war, or it could bring the nation together with steps toward a brighter future for Venezuela.

I hope that Rodríguez is up to the task, because the country has suffered enough. She can bring them hope against inflation and corruption. What’s going to happen? I have no idea, but we can still hope.

Venezuela is better off without Nicolás Maduro

Alright, those are my hopes for Venezuela, so what are my fears?

As I mentioned just before, Venezuela could tear itself apart if it and the world are not careful, but I believe the country will survive. It will be rough, but no worse than the years under Maduro, which have given them a new strength. I am not too fearful for Venezuela’s future. No, it’s what happens outside of Venezuela that gives me fear.

I said before that this blog post is not going into the legality of Trump’s actions towards Maduro, or “seizing” control of the country, or threatening to sell off Venezuela’s oil reserve. Far better writers, reporters, activists, lawyers, and journalists can do that.

Are Trump’s actions illegal, and will the US government suffer no consequences, or are Trump’s actions legal? I don’t know which one scares me the most. This has led me to a revelation; regardless of whether Trump’s actions were legal or not, and whether Venezuela will thrive or not, I fear that this is only the start.

Let’s begin with the United States, because it’s an obvious choice. We are going to play a game and pretend there will be no legal consequences from the international community for Trump and the US government over Maduro’s capture and “seizure” of Venezuela. With me so far? Great.

So, if Trump is allowed to capture a leader from a sovereign country, because that country has resources that the United States needs, what is stopping them from doing it again? What happens if they decide that taking control of Greenland needs to become a reality? While they are at it, maybe taking over Panama to secure the Panama Canal seems like a great idea to strengthen American interests.

Hell, let’s secure Cuba, Haiti, as well, though, securing Colombia is another super idea too.

The problem here is that no matter how it is justified, the world may look at the United States and think, “If they’re allowed to do it, so are we.”

Following Trump’s and the United States’ new foreign policy of 21st-century annexation, we can only guess at what the upcoming chaos could be. Imagine if Russia captured Volodymyr Zelenskyy, or China secured Lai Ching-te, because they followed the United States’ example.

Israel takes Palestine, China annexes Taiwan, Nepal, and Bhutan, and Russia absorbs the former USSR states of Ukraine, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

Maybe North Korea decides to unite the Korean peninsula and invades South Korea. Maybe India decides that Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are better off under Indian control. Maybe Sudan thinks that South Sudan has had its fun and its time to come home.

It could be that Egypt takes North Africa, while Nigeria absorbs West Africa. In other parts, Central, East, and Southern Africa descend into carnage. As for the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf, that could be a royal rumble, with land and oil on the line, involving multiple nations.

Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines could start fighting over islands, with Australia and New Zealand concluding that all Pacific Island nations need to be under their control, to protect everybody’s future.

Where would this strategy of a real-world game of Risk take us? Carving up regions in Antarctica and the Moon? The new land-grab would destroy everything and everyone. Trump just has to do it again, or another world leader decides that their neighbour has a nice pair of resources, and it starts. This, of course, is assuming that no country fights back.

Another possibility is what if one country decides that another country would be better off under their control, but the surrounding countries, or even the world, steps in to stop them? What if a conflict between two nations spills over and engulfs the region or the world? I mean, Russia is already knocking on NATO’s door.

It’s possible this could happen. Highly unlikely, but still possible. I fear that the wrong leaders are surrounded by the wrong people, being told the wrong advice, that if they don’t act and claim what they want from another country, someone else will.

To me, this is madness. It’s just madness. I don’t know how this is going to work out, because I doubt even Trump knows. All I know is that this, if it hasn’t already, could go sideways very quickly.

I’m glad that Venezuela has the opportunity to move forward, since the country has been lacking hope for a long time. Whatever happens next, I hope that world leaders, even my government, whom I trash-talk a lot, manage to calm the situation down, so clearer heads will prevail. Maybe.

Well, this is not exactly how I thought we would be starting 2026, but like many things in life, they are out of our hands; though it’s still nice to know that not everybody agrees with the sparkly new Donroe Doctrine. To quote Pope Leo XIV, “War is back in vogue. And the zeal for war is spreading.”

What are your thoughts on the situation? As always, please let me know.

Thanks again for reading, following, and subscribing to Some Geek Told Me. Before I depart to have UMC1 and UMC2 kick my arse once again in Monopoly, I thought I would continue the depressing tone of 2026.

I’d like to remind you all to continue discussing the situations I’ve mentioned, as well as those in Palestine, Congo, Sudan, and Ukraine. The ongoing riots and the deaths of protesters in Iran also warrant our attention.

The universe loves and needs opposites, which are being played out across the Earth. War has Peace, Hate has Love, Ignorance has Compassion, Apathy has Empathy, and Sour Cream and Chives has Salt and Vinegar, so don’t lose hope. And with that, I’ll see you next week.

Is there anything better than the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace? Hold my beer.

On By somegeektoldme@gmail.comIn People, Politics

I had originally planned to write about something else this week, but after learning about a particular piece of news, the die was cast, and the decision was no longer mine to make.

Just in case you’re a very unlucky person and have not been following the news, there has been a recent development in the administration of peace in the United States. The United States Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C., which is run by the United States Congress, has been unselfishly renamed after everybody’s favourite world leader, as the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace. Naming a building after yourself is rather classy, especially if it’s a government building.

This compelling and authentic move reflects President Trump’s desire for peace in the United States and around the world; except for Yemen, the European Union, Venezuela, Portland, Iran, Mexico, Canada, Chicago, and Greenland, but they don’t count.

To prove this point, President Trump was awarded the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize recently, which in no way panders to his fragile ego. That is just garbage, spun by fake news outlets that believe in accountability and justice.

Like President Trump, I am very humble, and I would like to acknowledge The Daily Show for giving me the idea for this informative article. Credit where credit is due. On behalf of 100% of the staff at Some Geek Told Me, I would like to thank The Daily Show for the inspiring idea, as well as President Trump for pursuing peace, because he can stop wars that don’t even exist! What a role model!

Credit: BBC & Getty Images

Because President Trump is a bastion for peace in a world that seems divided by President Trump, I have collected some other clinics, institutes, academies, and other learning centres that could be renamed, like the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace.

Sadly, I was born outside of the United States and away from President Trump’s bigly protection, so some of my selections may not be familiar to my international readers, but my New Zealand readers will understand.

And with that, let’s turn the page and begin now.

  • The Christopher Luxon Entitlement Academy
  • The Winston Peters Centre of Cultural Diversity
  • The Brian Tamaki LGBTQIA+ Appreciation Institute
  • The David Seymour Food Nutrition Clinic
  • The Pauline Hanson Centre of Islamic-Awareness
  • The Vladimir Putin Geography Academy
  • The Kim Jong Un Institute of Human Rights
  • The Viktor Orbán Centre for Free Speech
  • The Alexander Lukashenko Institute of Democracy
  • The Bashar al-Assad Anti-Corruption Institute
  • The Benjamin Netanyahu Anti-Genocide Centre
  • The Xi Jinping Institute for the Protection of the Uyghurs
  • The Nigel Farage Centre of Tolerance and Inclusion
  • The Kristi Noem Gun Safety School
  • The JD Vance Museum of Furniture
  • The RFK Jr Centre for Preventable Childhood Diseases
  • The Marco Rubio School of Fawning and Grovelling
  • The Sean Duffy Centre of Climate Change
  • The Lauren Boebert Gender-Affirming Clinic
  • The Marjorie Taylor Greene Institute for Autism Awareness
  • The Ted Cruz Free Abortion Clinic
  • The Elon Musk Family Planning Clinic
  • The Jeff Bezos Centre for Independent Book Sellers
  • The Bob Iger School of Business Ethnics
  • The Patrick W. Smith Academy of Accountability
  • The Darren Woods Museum of Environmental Disasters
  • The Anthony Hopkins Academy of Method Acting
  • The Neil deGrasse Tyson Flat Earth Centre
  • The Jonathan Pie Anti-Profanity School
  • The Alex Jones Meditation Institute
  • The Nicholas Cage Institute of Marriage Counselling 
  • The Rassie Erasmus Centre of Sports Ethnics
  • The Neymar School of Acting
  • The Cristiano Ronaldo Centre for Modesty and Humbleness

And I would like to close with a post humorous choice:

  • The J. R. R. Tolkien Memorial Institute for Concise Writing

So, how did I do? Did I miss any selections? As always, please let me know.

I hope you liked this week’s rant as much as I liked writing it. Next week will be the last proper blog post before I head off into the sunset for a much-needed break, since running a highly successful blog takes its toll.

Thanks again for reading, following, and subscribing to Some Geek Told Me. Please remember to walk your dog, read a banned book, watch the Supergirl trailer, and I’ll see you next week.

TIME’s Person of the Year is not what you think it is

On By somegeektoldme@gmail.comIn History, Literature, People, Politics

I realise there are more pressing issues confronting the world currently. These include the danger of climate change, the Sudanese civil war, the cryptocurrencies of Cristiano Ronaldo and the Hawk Tuah girl, Israel’s genocide of Palestine, when the Superman trailer is going to drop, and whether The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim, will rule them all at the box office.

In saying that, I must acknowledge last week’s announcement of TIME’s 2024 Person of the Year. If you’ve been living under a rock or listening to Chumbawamba’s Tubthumping at full volume for a week, then you would have heard that the lucky winner was 2016’s winner, Donald John Trump. You know, the star of Zoolander, Home Alone 2: Lost in New York, Two Weeks Notice, The Little Rascals, and Eddie.

As you can imagine, the concept of Donald Trump winning TIME’s 2024 Person of the Year, has delighted millions of people and equally enraged millions more. On one hand, people are praising the decision, because he’s the OG of MAGA, defeated Kamala Harris in the US Presidential election, survived an assassination attempt, and is the proud father of three of his five children.

On the other hand, Trump’s been busy. He was convicted on 34 felony charges for falsifying business records related to hush money payments to a porn star, found liable for sexual assault and defamation, and has more legal issues concerning the IRS, and the Trump Organisation, among others.

So the two questions on many people’s minds are, yes, bananas do grow upside down, but also, why was a convicted felony and President-elect selected as TIME’s 2024 Person of the Year? Sadly, the answer is boring and nuanced, because, and say it with me, TIME’s Person of the Year is not what you think it is.

Credit: TIME

Let’s go back a few steps to 1927, when TIME, the American news magazine, first introduced the award of Person of the Year to Charles Lindbergh.1 Now you would think gracing the cover of TIME for the Person of the Year, would be a great honour, worthy of the amazing contributions you have made to humanity for the past year.

Again, you could imagine that it was because you had developed a vaccine, brokered a peace treaty and ended a war, discovered a new early human species, won the World Cup, was the star of a $2 billion blockbuster, or won an election. If you thought this, you would be wrong, oh so wrong.

According to TIME editors, to be awarded Person of the Year, you need to fit this criteria:

“Featuring a person, group, idea, or object that “for better or for worse … has done the most to influence the events of the year.”

I’m going to let that sink in for you. Influence the events of the year. Not curing children’s diseases; not clearing mines from a warzone; not freeing sex slaves; not persecuting racists, like the Ku Klux Klan, or Neo-Nazis; not developing carbon capture devices; or not fighting for human and animal rights; but influence the events of the year.

After reading that, and for better or for worse, tell me that person(s) is not Donald Trump. Did I want it to be him? Of course not, because both my grandfathers would return from the grave to beat some sense into me if I did.

However, this is the reason Donald Trump was awarded the title; not because he’s a good, honest, positive, decent, law-abiding and amazing person, but because he has dominated the news cycle in 2024. He really has. Even here in New Zealand, we have read and watched his shenanigans this year, whether they were election-based or legal-based.

To highlight the selection, I give you two quotes from TIME”s website on the announcement, to better explain the choice from their point of view:

“For 97 years, the editors of TIME have been picking the Person of the Year: the individual who, for better or for worse, did the most to shape the world and the headlines over the past 12 months. In many years, that choice is a difficult one. In 2024, it was not.”

“Today, we are witnessing a resurgence of populism, a widening mistrust in the institutions that defined the last century, and an eroding faith that liberal values will lead to better lives for most people. Trump is both agent and beneficiary of it all. For marshaling a comeback of historic proportions, for driving a once-in-a-­generation political realignment, for reshaping the American presidency and altering America’s role in the world, Donald Trump is TIME’s 2024 ­Person of the Year.”

Nobody on the planet had dominated and influenced the news cycle in 2024 more than Donald Trump. Even Palestine was drowned out by the MAGA Emperor. Using TIME’s definition of “Featuring a person, group, idea, or object that “for better or for worse … has done the most to influence the events of the year”, Donald Trump is the clear winner.

I know this decision has upset people, but I want to leave you with two things; one negative and one positive. If you’re angry about the choice, don’t blame Trump. He’s a 78-year-old narcissist, who doesn’t have the need, desire, or ability to change.

Don’t blame TIME, by trash-talking or boycotting them. It’s their rules and they are just following them.

If you want someone to blame for Trump winning this award, blame yourself. Blame your parents, children, spouse, siblings, neighbours, and politicians. Blame teachers, lawyers, journalists, reporters, scientists, librarians, talk show hosts, activists, social influencers, podcasters, singers, actors, and world leaders, for this mess.

You could blame everybody and anybody you’ve ever talked to in the last 10 years. Hell, you can even blame me. The reason is that all of these people, regardless of their political philosophy and beliefs, or mine, all have something in common: whether it’s positive or negative, we all talk about Trump.

Any attention that man gets is good attention, because it means people are talking about him, and that’s what he wants. And we have all given it to him, which is why he has dominated the news cycle.

By ignoring his crazy rants and lies, along with his illegal dealings, we are condoning his behaviour; therefore, we are enabling him. By calling out his crazy rants and lies, along with his illegal dealings, he can play the “I’m a billionaire victim because the false news and the deep state are out to get me” card; therefore, we are enabling him.

He’s like a male succubus, but instead of feeding and living off sexual energy and activity, he thrives on communication. The more people discuss him, the stronger he becomes. His ego feeds off the attention. But hey, what do I know? Even writing this stupid post will probably mean Trump will reach Super Saiyan God status now.

As for the positive part, just remember that even though Trump won this award, he joins some other previous top-quality winners of the award like Chiang Kai-shek and Soong Mei-ling (1937), Adolf Hitler (1938), Joseph Stalin (1939 and 1942), Richard Nixon (1971 and 1972), Henry Kissinger (1972), Ruhollah Khomeini (1979), Jeff Bezos (1999), Vladimir Putin (2007), and Mark Zuckerberg (2010).

Trump and the rest of the League of Losers can’t hold a candle to recent winners like The Ebola Fighters (2014), Angela Merkel (2015), The Silence Breakers (2017), and Greta Thunberg (2019); along with my favourites, The Protester (2011), The Guardians (2018), and Volodymyr Zelensky and The Spirit of Ukraine (2022).

And with that, I’m going to shut my mouth and go to bed. We are well into Summer here, which I’ll discuss somewhat next week. Thanks again for reading, following, and subscribing to Some Geek Told Me. Please remember to walk your dog, read a banned book, keep watching Syria and Palestine, and I’ll see you next week. Christmas is coming!

1 The award was actually first named Man of the Year, but eventually, equality caught up.

An Ode to 34

On By somegeektoldme@gmail.comIn People, Politics

Trump.

Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump!

Even here in the South Pacific, there seems to be no escaping from Donald Trump. He’s here, he’s there, he’s in every courtroom, Donald Trump, Donald Trump!

Over the years, I’ve developed two vices that I’m ashamed to admit. I enjoy watching Panda Fail videos; basically, pandas failing at being pandas, but also watching billionaires complain. I can’t get enough of both of them. This awful transition brings us to Donald Trump’s recent trial.

It’s difficult to believe that the star of Home Alone 2: Lost in New York, the founder of Trump University, and the winner of the 2024 Trump International Golf Club Most Improved Player award, was found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to make hush money payments to a porn star, in an effort to make it appear as legitimate business expenses.

I was as shocked as you were. I mean, someone at the centre of over 4,000 legal cases, involving sexual harassment, sexual assault, personal defamation lawsuits, tax disputes, real estate lawsuits, and many more, couldn’t possibly be involved with lawlessness. The whole concept is very sad.

However, a jury of 12 of Trump’s peers, found him guilty of 34 felony counts, with sentencing to happen on 11th July 2024.

Former U.S President Donald Trump listens as defence lawyer Todd Blanche presents closing arguments during Trump’s criminal trial on charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016, in Manhattan state court in New York City. 28th May 2024 in this courtroom sketch. Credit: Jane Rosenburg/Reuters.

I’m not here to discuss in detail the trial because I’m not a legal expert. I have enough trouble remembering what I said to my children last night, let alone explaining a court case. No, what I’m here to comment on is the reaction to Trump’s conviction, mainly through entertainment.

As I’m getting older, I’m finding that I prefer to experience satirical news a lot more than I did before, thanks to Trump. So because of this, may I present the best reactions to Trump’s conviction, whether it’s monologues or songs. Oh, I forgot, the last video isn’t a response to his conviction, but it ties it in quite nicely.

I love listening to billionaires complaining that life is unfair, and watching Trump’s reaction to his conviction has been hilarious. Like I said before, I do feel ashamed about this.

What’s been the best reaction or response to Trump’s conviction? As always, please let me know. I’m feeling better again, so I’m ready to be infected with a child’s new illness. Good times.

Thanks again for reading, following, and subscribing to Some Geek Told Me. Don’t forget to walk your dog, read a banned book, watch the T20 World Cricket Cup, and I’ll see you next week because the Tour of the Solar System is painfully marching forward again. Awesome.