Creepy Assassination Coincidences...Or Are They?

This myth has been debunked to death, but its a good one, so I am going to debunk it again...my thanks (and apologies) to all of those who have already done it...

There is a list constantly doing the rounds of so-called 'coincidences' between the assassinations of JFK and Abe Lincoln. When you first read them, the similarities do seem uncanny. A spot of further analysis, though, soon puts them into perspective.

Coincidence 1:

Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846 Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946

True, true, true. But when you consider that these two men had careers and lives roughly a century apart, then it's not so amazing - especially when congressional elections are only held every other year.

Coincidence 2:

Lincoln was elected President in 1860
Kennedy was elected President in 1960

Again, these guys were enjoying political careers about a century apart. Plus, presidential elections are only held every four years (1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, etc) - so you would expect Kennedy to stand for Prez say, about 10-15 years after being elected to Congress - why, in about 1960! (And - what's so special about a 100 year difference anyway?)

Coincidence 3:

Lincoln's name has 7 letters
Kennedy's name has 7 letters

So does Bill Clinton's! And Johnson's. And Harding's. And Jackson's. And Madison's. And...

(We didn't even mention their first names or Lincoln's non-use of his middle name...)

Coincidence 4:

Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy

Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln

Patent nonsense. The second statement is true - there was a lowly-ranked PA named Lincoln who served Kennedy, but no record of the reverse...

Coincidence 5:

War was thrust upon Lincoln almost immediately after inauguration
War was thrust upon Kennedy almost immediately after inauguration

If you want to count the Civil War (1861-1865) and the Vietnam War (1964-1975) as occurring roughly 100 years apart...but then, Vietnam didn't even get going until Johnson was in office.

Coincidence 6:

Lincoln was succeeded, after assassination, by vice-president Johnson
Kennedy was succeeded, after assassination, by vice-president Johnson

True, but you have to admit, 'Johnson' is a pretty common name.

Coincidence 7:

Andrew Johnson was born in 1808
Lyndon Johnson was born in 1908

We're back to the 100-year coincidence again.

Coincidence 8:

Lincoln was sitting beside his wife when he was shot
Kennedy was sitting beside his wife when he was shot

Pretty expected as presidents don't tend to go out in public without their spouse in attendance...

Coincidence 9:

Lincoln was shot on a Friday
Kennedy was shot on a Friday

A massive one-in-seven shot, undermined even further by the fact that you'd expect most public functions to happen sometime between Friday and Sunday.

Coincidence 10:

Lincoln was shot in a theatre named Ford
Kennedy was shot in a car made by Ford

Only the biggest American car company of the 20th century, which had been producing vehicles for decades.

Coincidence 11:

Lincoln didn't die immediately after being shot
Kennedy didn't die immediately after being shot

Pretty normal for a gunshot victim, one would think.

Coincidence 12:

John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839
Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939

Nonsense again. Booth was born in 1838.

Coincidence 13:

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.

Slavery was a major concern of the 1850s, and civil rights had bamboozled the three presidents before Lincoln. The Civil War occurred on his watch, so he kind of had to deal with the issue. As for Kennedy, civil rights was again an issue that had flared up before he came to power, and it was not an issue he could ignore.

Coincidence 14:

Both Presidents were shot in the head.

That's where I'd aim too, if I was assassinating a president.

Coincidence 15:

Both were assassinated by Southerners.

Hardly incredible (they must make up a fair whack of the US population, plus the South would have been anti- both presidents due to their stances on civil rights). However, the fact that Booth was from Maryland doesn't really make him a dinky-di southerner - more a border-creature of some sort.

Coincidence 16:

Both were succeeded by Southerners.

Northern presidents often have southern vice-presidents - its a way of winning elections.

Coincidence 17:

Both assassins were known by their three names.

Apparently, Booth was often known simply as J.Wilkes Booth. And as we all know, once someone has murdered someone, the courts and the media often attach their full label when describing them.

Coincidence 18:

Booth ran from the theatre and was caught in a warehouse.
Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theatre

Booth was actually caught some days later, at a tobacco shed on a farm - hardly a warehouse. Oswald was caught in a cinema, hours after fleeing a book depository.

Coincidence 19:

Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

Booth died in a gun-battle; maybe died before their trials would be more accurate, but remember - these guys shot two presidents, so they were pretty much Public Enemy No.1 in a country full of guns.

Coincidence 20:

A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe, Maryland.
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was in Marilyn Monroe.

This is the jokey one people always throw in. I'll bust it anyway. There is no Monroe in Maryland. And Marilyn Monroe died in 1962 - a full year before Kennedy was assassinated.

I Am A Jam Doughnut

“All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner."

So said our mate John F. Kennedy, at the height of the Cold War back in June 1963, to an adoring crowd of Berliners. Obviously, he was telling them he was one of them. But did he actually make a gigantic gaffe, and tell them all that he was a jam doughnut?

This is one of those historical tidbits that has become accepted fact. I even tell my kids at school all about JFK and his oratorical faux pas.

The story goes like this: Berliner, rather than being the German word for ‘person from Berlin’, actually means, ‘jam-filled pastry from Berlin’ (in much the same way as a Wiener is a sausage from Vienna, or a frankfurter is a sausage from Frankfurt). Kennedy’s crowd being almost solely German, they would have instantly picked up on his mistake, and found his assertion ridiculous, embarrassing, and funny.

It all makes for a great laugh. The sad thing is, it’s not true. Bugger.

He definitely said it. And he got it spot-on.

A Berliner is, indeed, a pastry from Berlin. But only to Germans who come from outside of Berlin. Berliners call their jam doughnuts pfannkuchen (pancakes).

The problem for scholars of German, is Kennedy’s use of the indefinite article ein (a). A true Berlin citizen would have said, ‘Ich bin Berliner”, without the ein. By using ein, he was implying that he was a non-human Berliner, and therefore a doughnut.

However, as a non-citizen of the city, expressing his figurative solidarity with its people, the use of ein was necessary. Being a US President with a strong Boston accent, he was most evidently not a true Berliner. By using ein, he was sort of saying, ‘I am an American who identifies with the struggles of the people of Berlin’.

Kennedy did make the phrase up at the last minute, and inserted it twice into his landmark speech, in the newly-divided city. But he ran it past his official interpreter, and practised it (in front of Germans) in the office of then Mayor Willy Brandt.

So where did the myth come from? It seems that it didn’t really take off until 20 years after the speech, when the incident was mentioned in Len Deighton’s spy thriller, Berlin Game. The story’s protagonist, Bernard Samson, refers to the jam doughnut gaffe as follows:

“'Ich bin ein Berliner,' I said. It was a joke. A Berliner is a doughnut. The day after President Kennedy made his famous proclamation, Berlin cartoonists had a field day with talking doughnuts.”

A couple of book reviews then mentioned the story, and all of a sudden, it became gospel fact.

Now, god knows where Deighton got the idea from, but he has gone on the record as saying that the character of Bernard Samson is prone to exaggerate and joke, and not everything he says should be taken seriously. So it could be an example of the playful Deighton sparking off an urban legend, via the playful character of Bernard Samson.

Wherever the myth is from, I can tell you one thing: I am mightily annoyed at finding out that JFK didn’t stuff up, because it means I have one less slightly-interesting anecdote to bore my Year 12 kids with. Damn.

Ich bin disappointed.

And the loser is...

What with all the Obama-Clinton furore in the press recently, I have found myself pondering over the following dilemma: just who has been the worst US President out of the 42 white Protestant men (and one white Catholic man) who have so far held that esteemed office?

Now, in 2008, it is mighty easy to dismiss the incumbent shitwit as the worst of the worst. By any measure, George Dubya is a man of loose morals and of questionable intelligence, who is already well within the 'lame duck' catgeory. There is really nothing he could do in the next six months to lift himself from the doldrums of presidential-effectiveness.

However, Americans don't seem to completely agree with this sentiment. They have voted for him twice (sort of), and the vitriol and anger directed towards him back in 2003-4 seems to have largely been replaced with feelings of pity for his pure bumbling incompetence. Yes, he is pretty crap, but he can't help it. And at least he has stopped invading other people's countries in recent years.

There is much debate about who has been the best US President. In fact, there have been a large number of surveys based on this question, where Americans are asked to rank their past leaders from first to last. Pretty unsurprisingly, the favourites are usually Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Washington. Jefferson, Truman, the other Roosevelt, and Wilson tend to follow. In the last 2 major surveys, (2002 and 2005), George W. has come 23rd and 19th respectively. Bill Clinton managed 18th and 22nd. Bush Snr. was about the same, with 22nd and 21st. So, in recent times, it seems the guys we all remember get lumped in about the middle. Not too bad, but not too great either.

But what about the worst? There was a poll conducted in 2008 of professional historians, of which 98% declared the Bush presidency a failure, with over 60% calling it the worst so far. Now, this was a poll of experts, who might actually know what they're talking about, but it probably doesn't reflect the view of most Americans. And certainly not your average gun-totin' redneck Texan.

On the public surveys, there are a few names which tend to pop up at the bottom of the list. The main three are:

Franklin Pierce (1853-57)
James Buchanan (1857-61)
Warren G Harding (1921-23)

Another two, William Henry Harrison, and James Garfield, usually remain unranked, as they both died after a few months in office, and therefore didn't really get the chance to bugger up the domestic economy, or send the marines into a troublesome Latin American country.

So let's look at our three top contenders.

1) Pierce.

It seems that the main issue with this guy was that he allowed himself to be manipulated by the pro-slavery lobby, allowing the newly-settled western states to introduce slavery if they wished. He has been accused of being a northern President with southern sympathies, of being unable to keep control of domestic or international affairs, and of being indecisive. He is, so far, the only President who failed to win his party's nomination to stand for a second term. And, after his crappy period as President, he became an alcoholic (on losing the nomination, he reportedly said, 'there's nothing left to do but get drunk'), and he once ran over an old woman in his carriage. He died of liver cirrhosis at the age of 64.




2) Buchanan.

Poor old Jimmy Buchanan famously declared that 'history will vindicate my memory'. Well, it seems that it didn't. Buchanan took a similarly weak stance on slavery as his predecessor, Pierce. It was during his presidency that the southern states moved towards secession, and historians blame his inability to deal with this pressing issue as one of the reasons for the Civil War. In fact, by the time he left office, seven slave states had already left the Union, and the first tentative shots of the conflict had been fired.

He also sent the troops in to Utah to hassle the Mormons, and oversaw the Financial Panic of 1857.

Buchanan saw the writing on the wall, and didn't stand for nomination in 1860. In fact, he departed office gladly, telling Lincoln that if he was as happy to enter the White House as Buchanan was to leave it, then Lincoln was indeed a happy man.


3) Harding.

Ah, Warren Gamaliel Harding. Conservative newspaperman, popular Republican President, inventor of the word, 'normalcy' - and historical lame duck. What went wrong?

Well, apparently he appointed a bunch of his cronies into his administration, and they proceeded to rob the nation's coffers. Harding either couldn't or wouldn't do anything about his corrupt chums. "I have no trouble with my enemies," Harding said at one point, "but my damn friends, they're the ones that keep me walking the floor nights!"

He also had a rather clumsy style of speaking, loaded with gaffes, mispronunciations, incorrect words, and cluttered phrases.

Conservative and inept. Cronyism and corruption. Inability to speak publicly. Does any of this sound familiar?


So, in conclusion?

From what I've read about these three blokes, it seems that the first two were incompetents who presided over the disintegration of the Union, while the third was a bit average. To a non-American, who doesn't see the Civil War as the defining moment of tragedy in World History, they don't seem that bad.

My vote definitely goes to those Presidents who have abused American power, to the detriment of the rest of the globe.

Johnson, Nixon, Bush Jr., hang your (respectively) ugly, lying and empty, heads in shame.

Curse of the Kennedys?

Watching the news tonight, there was a story about Teddy Kennedy having a seizure and being taken to hospital. The (Channel 10) newsreader linked this event to the infamous 'Kennedy Curse', the supposed belief that the Kennedy clan experiences more than its fair share of misfortune.

Yes, you heard it right. A 76-year old man, who works in a stressful occupation, was hospitalised, and Channel 10 said it was because of a curse.

But, apart from this frivolous invocation of the myth, is there actually any truth to the curse story? I mean, it seems that the Kennedys do get struck by more murders, mishaps and medical emergencies than other uber-wealthy East Coast political dynasties.

I checked the main examples of the Curse to see how plausible the theory is:

1941 - Rosemary, John's sister, was given a lobotomy, due to her increasingly violent and severe mood swings. Her cognitive abilities suffered and she was institutionalised until she died in 2005.

Curse or bad luck? Every slightly wacko rich girl in the 40s was given a lobotomy. Today we pursue them relentlessly in gossip magazines until they top themselves. Rose was probably actually lucky to have been a socialite daughter back then.

1944 - Older brother Joseph dies in a midair explosion whilst flying a secret mission in WW2.

Curse or bad luck? Flying? Secret mission? WW2? Why was anybody surprised when he died?

1955/6 - Jackie Kennedy suffers a miscarriage, and later gives birth to a stillborn daughter.

Curse or bad luck? Don't know if anyone told the Kennedys, but this happens a lot, to regular people. Often a miscarriage is followed by other problems in later pregnancies.

1961 - Patriarch Joseph Kenndy suffers a disabling stroke.

Curse or bad luck? He was 73, for God's sake.

1963 - JFK and Jackie's second son dies after he is born prematurely.

Curse or bad luck? OK, Jackie and John aren't having much luck when it comes to having healthy bubs.

1963 - JFK is assassinated, on the same day his great-grandfather dies.

Curse or bad luck? Now, his great-grandfather must have been bloody ancient by now. He could have gone any day. And we all know about the assassination. But he was the President, he was in a slow-moving open-topped vehicle, in a country with lots of guns and wackos, at a time when the USA was undergoing profound social changes in an uncertain international environment. Again - just a matter of time.

1968 - His brother Robert is assassinated.

Curse or bad luck? If I was the sort of person who hated politicians enough to kill them, and I was going for Bobby Kennedy, then I would probably plump for the symbolic method of taking him out in a similar manner to his dead, famous brother. JFK had already shown that politics can be a violent game in the States - Bobby simply proved the point further. If he and John had settled for jobs as partners in a suburban law firm, they would probably both still be here.

1969 - Ted Kennedy drives his car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick, killing the passenger.

Curse or bad luck? Ted didn't die. Ted was drunk. Ted had a reckless driving charge already under his belt. Ted went on to serve a long, distinguished career in the US Senate. In fact, seems the curse here was on poor old Mary Jo Kopechne.

1972 - Robert's son is on a plane that is hijacked by Palestinian militants.

Curse or bad luck? So were about 300 other people.

1973 - Jackie's stepson dies in a plane crash.

Curse or bad luck? Stepson? He's not even a Kennedy!

1984 - Robert's son David dies of a cocaine and Demerol overdose.

Curse or bad luck? I think you'll find that it was a lethal combination of expensive drugs, not a curse, that killed the young chap.

1988 - Jackie's stepdaughter dies of drug abuse-related heart failure.

Curse or bad luck? See the last two.

1991 - William Kennedy Smith fights a rape charge in a highly publicised trial. And then acquitted.

Curse or bad luck? The operative word here is, 'acquitted'.

1994 - Jackie Kennedy dies of cancer.

Curse or bad luck? Aged 64. Lots of people have cancer, by the way.

1997 - One of Robert's sons dies in a skiing accident.

Curse or bad luck? Why can't these people die in less glamorous ways? I never heard of a Kennedy dying in a box-crushing accident. OK, seems Robert's side did get a raw deal.

1999 - JFK Jnr. dies in a plane crash.

Curse or bad luck? What is it with the Kennedys and plane accidents? If I even married into the family, I'd be taking trains and ferries for the rest of my life...

So - the verdict?

After reading about the misfortunes to hit the family, I have come to the following conclusions:

1) They indulge in high-risk activities - skiing, flying planes, taking Demerol overdoses, and driving amongst Texans.

2) They are high-profile and therefore are valuable targets. Also, we hear about them a lot. Who knows, there could be a family in western Sydney with a similar attrition rate, but no-one ever mentions the 'Curse of the Smiths from Granville'.

3) They are all mixed up in politics...

4) There are a bloody shitload of them! In fact, good Catholics that they are, the Kennedy clan currently boasts 13 million members in Massachussetts alone. No wonder one of them dies every few years.

5) They are human. Apparently, humans die of cancer, heart failure, and even in plane accidents.

'Busted'. (I'll stop doing that from now on...)