Bastards yesterday, diamond blokes today

My mate Sam threw out a challenge to me on his blog a couple of weeks ago. He asked me to identify any people or groups whom once we regarded as radical, violent, evil, terrorists, who threatened our very way of life, who are now held in somewhat higher regard.

It's actually not so difficult to come up with a few names. Terrorists are, by and large, simply politicians who have chosen violent methods to pursue their aims. Quite often, they have done so because they see no other avenue. Sometimes, they have done so because they like blowing shit up. And sometimes, they are not anti-government rebels, or shadowy independence groups - they actually are the government.

Once a terrorist is able to use legitimate, constitutional means to resolve their grievances, they quite often choose to do so. And once a terrorist chooses - or is allowed - to come in from the cold, they can become peaceful, regular politicians. We all know that there is a fine line between terrorism, and fighting for what to many is a noble cause; just as there is a fine line between fighting a war for good reasons, and fighting one for crappy reasons.

So, anyway, leaving aside people who are terrorists and in government (eg. Dubya), here's my Top Ten (alright, Nine) of Transformed Terrorists. Feel free to comment on them...

1. Nelson Mandela

Yep, the man himself. Today he is the embodiment of all that is noble and good about politics. He is kind, tolerant, inclusive, noble, and just. Since being released from prison, he has become a nobel peace laureate, and the global statesman without equal. Yet, this guy was only knocked off the US Terrorism watch list last month. Why? Because he used to be regarded (in South Africa at least) as a bloodthirsty insurgent. Mandela, short of legal options for pursuing true democracy in his homeland, resorted to violent means. He headed the armed wing of the ANC and was imprisoned for 27 years for charges inclduing sabotage.

2. Yasser Arafat.

OK. This list isn't in any particular order. And some people wouldn't include ol' Crackerfat. But few would disagree that Yasser made the move from internationally reviled terror chief, to legitimate negotiating partner on the issue of Palestine. True, he died without his dream being realised, after being trapped in his compound by the Israelis for the last few years of his life, but he kept the dream of an independent Palestine alive for decades. He even used to shape his headscarf into the rough outline of his nation every day. In the early 80s, he was almost picked off by Ariel Sharon in Beirut, before being offered last-minute asylum in Tunisia, yet he bounced back and became a quasi-national leader.

3. Menachem Begin.

In the interests of balance, I've now got my favourite former Israeli terror chief. In the 1940s, Begin headed Irgun, a terrorist group which perpetrated hundreds of violent acts against the British administration in Palestine. Thirty years later, he was Prime Minister! Proof that, whatever your race, religion, or creed in the Middle East, bombing people is no obstacle to a respectable career in constitutional politics.

4. Prachanda.

A contemporary one. In 1996, Prachanda ("the fierce one") initiated a Marxist insurrection against the Nepalese government. 13,000 people died during the conflict. Now, Prachanda is part of the interim government, and a favourite for future President. And he has managed to engineer the end of the Nepalese monarchy! So, kids, there you go: violent Maoism does pay.

5. Muammar Gaddafi.

Apparently, there are at least 32 ways to spell Qadaffy's name. There, I've used two already. Back in the mid-80s, he was 'Mad Dog' himself, rogue leader of a rogue state, so vile that the Yanks bombed him. And now? He has renounced terrorism and is being courted by the great powers of Europe, especially the French. Why? Because he has lots of oil and money and he wants to buy guns. And if you renouce terrorism you're allowed to buy guns and be violent. Don't you just love the way international politics works?

6. Xanana Gusmao.

1990s - public enemy number one in Indonesia, arrested for separatism and arms possession.
2008 - Universally adored President of a free East Timor. But probably still not loved by the Indos.

7. Tito.

I guess this one depends on your politics. Tito went from gun-totin' thorn in the Nazis' side in the Balkans, to suit-wearin' thorn in the Russians' side as President of Yugoslavia. The Partisan leader was prepared to piss off anyone who tried to step on his nation, again showing us that 'terrorism' is a purely relative term.

8. Daniel Cohn-Bendit.

In 1968, DCB was a firebrand French student, who led the violent, dramatic riots in Paris which nearl toppled French democracy. He was passionate, angry, uncompromising. No way would he become a part of the rotten, corrupt institutions of stagnant old Europe!

And now? DCB is a respectable, law-abiding Member of the European Parliament. Stick it to the man, Danny!!

9. Fidel Castro.

One day he's a communist revolutionary insurgent hiding out in the hills of southern Cuba. The next, he's a communist revolutionary insurgent swigging Bacardi in his palace in Havana. And still a terrorist, according to the Yanks.

10. Er..that's it.

James Newhouse - A Real Don Juan

I have to admit, I know bugger-all about Giacomo Casanova. Except that his name translates into English as James Newhouse (don't names always sounds better in Romance languages? Mine would be Tommaso Guerriero).

My good mate Sam (Samuele Rubinetti) asked me if I could address the myth of Mr Casanova. Was he, as history would have us believe, a 'man-whore'?

Because that is certainly what he is famous for. Whether you know the intricacies of his life or not, chances are that, when you hear that name, you think of a guy who has slept around a lot. A bit like Don Juan (or Don Giovanni, in Italian). The difference is, Don Juan was fictional. But Casanova was the real thing.

Jimmy Newhouse led a pretty darned exciting life. Born in Venice in 1725, he spent 73 fun-packed years carousing around Europe, hatching schemes, sleeping with women, educating himself, being arrested, gambling away his fortune, and generally not focusing on any one thing for too long. Reading about his exploits, one thinks immediately of an 18th-century Cosmo Kramer - constantly flitting from project to project, from lover to lover, having a grand old time, and always landing on his feet.

But was he a 'man-whore'?

In his memoirs, he mentions 122 sexual encounters with different women (with a few not-so-boastful implied encounters with blokes).

Now, 122 may sound like a lot. But that still only averages out to two a year, from when he was first fondled by a female friend at age 11. And there are plenty of other, more contemporary figures, who have probably had as many, if not more: Mick Jagger and Warren Beatty jump to mind, as well as basketballer Wilt Chamberlain, who claimed he'd slept with 20,000 ladies. Wow.

But it's not just about the quantity. In his lengthy discussions of his seduction technique, he states the importance of love being one-on-one (no orgies for our Venetian friend); of the value of attentiveness and conversation; that alcohol and violence are not tools to be employed by the truly great lover; and that the greatest conquests were those preceded by some sort of chase (one night stands would not have been his favourites).

So, it seems that Cassie slept with a very large number of women, but treated each as a sexually/emotionally/intellectually-fulfilling relationship, to be savoured over a quite lengthy period of time. Unlike the conventional image of a man-whore, which would look more like Keith Richards, pepped up on goofballs, shagging fourteen underaged groupies in a Miami hotel, whilst wearing a leather g-string and 10-inch dildo, and simultaneously snorting coke off a dwarf's thigh.

The other thing to remember is that the main source for our information on Casanova's wondrous sexploits is his very own, 12-volume autobiography - The History of My Life. Running to 3500 pages in its unexpurgated form, the book pretty much recounts every single experience in Giacomo's time on earth.

This isn't selling yourself along the lines of a modern-day cash-in memoir such as Britney: My Life (by Britney Spears and Some Proper Author, 44 pages). This is pure, unadulterated, 12-volume, self-promotion by the multi-talented celebrity of his era. So we can probably take some of what he says with a grain of salt.

He did lots of amazing stuff, and lived a rich and fulfilling life. Along the way he had lots of wholesome sex. The he wrote a big, fat exaggerated account about it.

In fact, if Casanova was anything, he was a self-obsessed celebrity with ADHD, who thought he could do absolutely anything if he put his mind to it, who had an obsession with sex.

Kind of like Madonna.

Great-great-great-grandfather Genghis

You know that guy sitting opposite you on the bus this morning? The one with the reddish tinge to his hair, and the hint of oriental heritage in his eyes? And possibly a scimitar hanging from his hip? Well, the chances are relatively high that he is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan.

You may have heard of the Genghis Khan effect. I stumbled upon it the other day, and its one of the coolest historical doobywacks I've encountered in a while. The basic premise is as follows:

In 2003, a group of 23 scientists completed ten years of research in the lands constituting the former Mongol Empire. They analysed the DNA of thousands of men in those regions, studying especially the Y chromosomes, those passed from father to son.

Apparently, the Y-chromosome remains largely unchanged as it makes its genetic way forward through history. Every now and then, a (usually harmless) mutation occurs somewhere along its length, and this mutation, or 'marker', will then pass on from generation to generation.

These Y-markers are useful because, if you find two blokes with the same one, chances are that they are both descended from the same ancestor.

The scientists conducting this research made an amazing discovery: in the former empire of the Great Khan, around 16 million men, or 1 in 12 males, share the same Y-marker, one which is found only in that region. Also, the mutation is about 1000 years old.

The only possible way for a mutation like that to spread to so many people in such a short time, is if the person carrying the original manages to kill off lots of the male competition, and sleep with lots of women, and have lots of sons.

That sounds like our Genghis. He killed hundreds of thousands, he had concubines and harems, and he got first pick of the conquered females.

So the explanation goes like this. Genghis picked up the Y-marker from a recent male relative, maybe his great-grandfather. He and his male siblings spread their line throughout their rapidly-conquered territories. They murdered the guys and raped the ladies. And now Genghis has 16 million direct male descendants.

The rest of us could expect about 20 male heirs by the year 2800. So Genghis has spread his seed at 800,000 times the average rate.

Of course, we can't be sure that the progenitor was Temujin himself, until we find his remains and test his DNA. But the odds on it being him are pretty good. I mean, how many other murderous Mongolian warlords, ruling the whole of Eurasia, were there 8 centuries ago?

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.

One lump or two?

Hitler, has only got one ball
The other is in the Albert Hall
Himmler, has something sim'lar
And poor old Goebbels, has no balls, at all



We've all heard that ditty - or a variation on it - at some point, probably in some god-awful World War Two film where the Brits have stiff upper lips and a doughty, pipe-smoking officer, and the Nazis are all...well, a bit shit.

The song is known as the Colonel Bogey March, and most of us - me included - probably think this delightful little piece of poetry has at least some basis in fact. I mean, Hitler did have only one testicle, didn't he? Sure, the other wasn't on display in a large British concert venue, but Hitler was sexually not all there, so to speak. Why else would you invade Poland, and eat vegetarian food, and rant on about the raw deal the Aryans were getting, whilst having untold millions of untermensch slaughtered?

I'm still a big believer in the two Hitler sex myths. As in, these ones:

1) Hitler only had one ball.
2) Hitler was into some WEIRD sexual stuff. Like watching people shit on each other.

God, they're good, aren't they?? They just explain so much. But are they true?

Let's do Myth #1 first. Was Hitler monorchic?

Well, apparently, yes. The evidence suggest he received an injury to his groin (whenever you hear this on Sports Tonight, read: bollocks) during WW1. Also, his commanding officer during this war has stated that a routine VD exam showed Hitler was missing his left testicle. The Soviets released the results of an autopsy during the 1970s also saying as much, but this postmortem has been largely dismissed as a pile of Brezhnev-era bullshit. I mean, whatever was left of the Fuhrer's smoking corpse when the Commies picked it up was probably sans-bollock because of the hasty attempt to cremate it.

Apparently, his doctors during the 1930s and 1940s did not note his missing organ. But, let's be honest, if you had been Hitler's personal medic in 1940, would you have drawn the mad bastard's attention to his loss?

The other theory is that he had syphillis, and had lost his little boy due to the onset of the late stages of the disease. The associated madness could explain his rather erratic behaviour between the years of 1919 and 1945.

Some say the above song was written by the British government as a propaganda tool, designed to send Hitler around the bend by reminding him of his impotence. Myth? Or the most extreme form of bullying ever witnessed in international diplomacy?

Did it even matter? In one online forum, I found this comment:

"Like Miranda said on Sex and the City... "Women don't care. We care about nice arms, great eyes, a big dick... I've never once heard a woman say: 'He had such a big full scrotum.'"

I guess only one person could have ever told us. Eva Braun. And he had the poor bitch poison herself with cyanide.

OK. Myth decidely neither proved nor disproved. What about the second one?

Was Hitler some sort of weird sexual fetishist?

From what I've read, there doesn't seem to be much evidence for this. There are a lot of quasi-Freudian analyses, usually by Jewish guys called Dr. _berg, who assert that Hitler's over-protective mother fuelled his later obsessions with the anal/faecal/buccal regions, and this was why he was such a cad.

Look, he was an arsehole. You don't need to be into amputee-sex or tranny porn to be a headcase. Looking for sexual motivation behind his actions kind of denies the basic inhumanity of his character. And anyway, some of the nicest folks I know like being pooed upon.

I have found it difficult to find any real proof of Hitler's preoccupation with poo, wee or bums. And, as a British citizen, I have to admit that my entire sense of humour is based around these three things, so hey, what's the problem?

My verdict? No watching people shit on each other's chests for sexual gratification.

Also, he fancied his niece. This one is pretty much true. Sounds gross, but Hitler's dad did marry his niece, and together they spawned Adolf. So he wouldn't have found it too weird.

Hitler had two balls. But possibly he had syphillis. He didn't have much sex, but that he did have was with a blond Aryan girl.

Debate over.

The 300 problems I have with this movie...

Whichever way you view it - including through a drug-and-alcohol fuelled haze - The 300 is a shit movie. Leprositic, sexually-depraved Spartan elders, fake-sixpacked David Wenhams, booby-flashing religious oracles: all these images, and more, really give me the crying shits. It's films like this that make my job as a history teacher even harder than it should be. Every day, some snotty-nosed kid asks me a mind-blowingly stupid question like, 'When was Achilles alive?', or 'Why did medieval dragons speak with a Scots brogue?', or, 'Why was Alexander the Great such an arrogant and irritating Irish partyboy?'

Now, I can understand why directors would want to spice up their historical movies a little. Especially if you've settled on making the next Michael Collins or John Howard: the Little Guy from Bennelong. But if there is one event in history which doesn't need any extra spice, then the showdown at Thermopylae in 480BC should be the one. You don't need bluescreen and piles of dead Persians to make that battle look exciting.

Artistic licence is all very well. So is painting muscles on diminuitive Australian actors, or having the guys in sounds make a loud 'thunk' noise every time a Spartan lightly presses his pinky finger against a division of heavily armed Phoenician auxiliaries. But if there is one thing I really can't stand about The 300, it is the portrayal of Xerxes, the mighty King of the Persians.

Compare these two pictures:


The first shows a gigantic, heavily-pierced, near-naked, bejewelled, androgynous, Brazilian actor/model. The second shows Xerxes.

However, unless you're especially interested in Ancient History, you probably think the first one is Xerxes.

This leads us to another problem with The 300. Xerxes is presented to us as the villain of the film, and, as such, he needs to look menacing - and different. Yes, he is wearing a tight pair of briefs, much like Leonidas and crew, but otherwise he is decidedly non-Spartan - tall, bald, feminine, evil - and brown.

Ah, xenophobia. It's always been a necessary component of war movies. Whether it's the cold-blooded German officers of a WW2 flick, the raggedy Iraqis of a Gulf War movie, or the cunning Viet Cong (slippery bastards, dressing like civilians!) in any number of Vietnam films, we do love an enemy who is a bit different from us. And, despite The 300 being set 2500 years ago, in a world we would barely recognise, we still have the good (blond, white, honourable Spartans - our European forebears), and the bad (hordes of dark-skinned Iranians). And look at them - trying to invade Greece! How dare they. Just as treacherous as their deceitful, belligerent descendants.

Look, I know that Frank whatshisname was trying to make a comic book-style, not-entirely-accurate, film about Thermopylae. And some of the scenes are pretty exciting. But film makers need to remember - a lot of people don't rush to the history books to check whether what they've just been told is true. They see the words 'based on true events', and think that they're watching a $120 million documentary.

Anyway, I'm getting off my High Trojan Horse now. I might go and watch a quality historical film, like Alexander.

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...)