I’ve imagined that the WSJ’s copy editor who let the original 2002 article go through must have soon after lost their job. The moment the phrase “lucky duckies” was spotted should have been enough to reject the piece, or at least send it back for rewriting. However, I would be wrong in thinking that. Like all too many arch-conservatives, the WSJ’s editorial board loves to double-down on mistakes; the phrase “lucky duckies”, in the context it originally appeared, was later used in at least two other WSJ articles I found.
Suppose Kirk Cousins (provided he stays healthy) does well in Atlanta, taking the Falcons to the playoffs. Where in the 2025 and 2026 drafts will the Falcons be picking in the first round? In the 20s, one would expect. Now, would it be realistic to think a “Quarterback of the Future” will be available at that point?
Apparently, strategic thinking is not too appreciated in sports analysis. Reportedly, for those in the know (who saw him as a top-3 QB pick, if not for the injuries he experienced in Indiana) it was quite unexpected that Michael Penix was on the board at #8. Expecting that Penix would still be available further down the line was not realistic; Penix was on the radar of a number of teams. The Broncos would have certainly picked Penix at #12 if the Vikings didn’t at #10.
That the Falcons chose to draft a QB in the 2024 draft was not in itself surprising. Putting all the eggs in the Cousins basket is obviously not wise. But, the Falcons pulling the trigger in the 1st round astounded the world. I was expecting the Falcons to wait until the 2nd or 3rd rounds to pick Desmond Ridder v2.0 (likely Bo Nix, out of Oregon, or Spencer Rattler, out of South Carolina). This would be a choice which would probably doom the Falcons to, at best, mediocrity for the next 5-6 seasons. The Penix pick was high risk-high reward. Falcons owner Arthur Blank, at age 81, went along with it because he could see down the road that any other decision would never win a championship.
Why do all too many working poor profess to admire Trump? Simple ignorance plays a part, but there is more to it.
They dislike Bill Clinton for the same reason they dislike Barack Obama and for the same reason they dislike Joe Biden. All these men came from humble backgrounds and through a combination of talent, intelligence, perseverance, and personality achieved the top of the mountain. Clinton’s, Obama’s, and Biden’s stories exposes the relative life failures many of them experienced.
In contrast, they look upon the likes of the Bushs and Trump and feel less threatened, rationalizing if they were born rich they could have done the same. In other words, “Life is governed by chance, not ability, so any failure is not my fault.”
To be clear, we’re talking about emotions here, not rationality.
The euphemisms don’t change the reality of the situation, just the perception of the situation. Something people don’t realize until it is WAY too late.
I’ve imagined that the WSJ’s copy editor who let the original 2002 article go through must have soon after lost their job. The moment the phrase “lucky duckies” was spotted should have been enough to reject the piece, or at least send it back for rewriting. However, I would be wrong in thinking that. Like all too many arch-conservatives, the WSJ’s editorial board loves to double-down on mistakes; the phrase “lucky duckies”, in the context it originally appeared, was later used in at least two other WSJ articles I found.