Phil Mickelson Skipping Phoenix to Play in Saudi Arabia

[mcanadiens]

33 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

I don't either, but if we stopped people from legally taking money from people we don't like, that would create a big burden to check on the political/social stances of all employers, service providers, and goods manufacturers at all times.

Is anyone actually suggesting that it ought to be illegal for Phil to play golf for the despot?

People have to make decisions about who they want to do business with. Even in my fairly humble trade, I've had to weigh the idea of taking a piece of work with whether I wanted to be associated with the person offering it.

Clearly, there is no serious thought about its legality, but harsh criticism is warranted here. 

[dsc123]

1 hour ago, ncates00 said:

Under ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct § 1.2(b), an attorney can accept or decline to represent a person (who is not already a client) and that representation does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities.  Like an attorney doing a job for otherwise disliked clients, there is no endorsement despite receiving a check.  Otherwise, any time someone does something, they could be aligned with the other's views.  Especially in today's divided culture--we like to say "you're with us or against us."  There is some nuance here.  Phil is only playing golf and receiving a check, just like any other independent contractor.  Just like a gardener working for some millionaire insider trader--the guy just wants a check and the fact that Phil "doesn't need the money" is not proof positive that it is an endorsement unless he either financially contributes to the regime or otherwise expressly supports the regime.  

Tell that to Alan Dershowitz. 

[DeadMan]

1 hour ago, ncates00 said:

Under ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct § 1.2(b), an attorney can accept or decline to represent a person (who is not already a client) and that representation does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities.  Like an attorney doing a job for otherwise disliked clients, there is no endorsement despite receiving a check.  Otherwise, any time someone does something, they could be aligned with the other's views.  Especially in today's divided culture--we like to say "you're with us or against us."  There is some nuance here.  Phil is only playing golf and receiving a check, just like any other independent contractor.  Just like a gardener working for some millionaire insider trader--the guy just wants a check and the fact that Phil "doesn't need the money" is not proof positive that it is an endorsement unless he either financially contributes to the regime or otherwise expressly supports the regime.  

This is not a valid comparison. Lawyers need to represent bad guys so the adversarial system still works. The only way a regular person can have faith that the system isn't rigged against them is to have people represent and defend bad people. Phil is not a lawyer defending a client. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, ncates00 said:

Under ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct § 1.2(b), an attorney can accept or decline to represent a person (who is not already a client) and that representation does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities.

While I was typing up a response, another lawyer pointed out what I think should be obvious to you, too, @ncates00: this isn't the U.S. legal system which strives to guarantee that even people everyone KNOWS are guilty have the fairest trial possible, the fairest sentencing possible, etc., the adversarial nature of which is kind of a bedrock as I understand it.

1 hour ago, ncates00 said:

Like an attorney doing a job for otherwise disliked clients, there is no endorsement despite receiving a check.

This is all this boils down to, and why you've again failed to add anything new. You don't think taking a check to take part in a PR stunt put on by a horrible organization is "supporting" that PR stunt and thus supporting the benefactors of the PR stunt, while most everyone else does.

That's it. That's your entire position, and frankly, mine as well (in disagreement).

1 hour ago, ncates00 said:

Just like a gardener working for some millionaire insider trader--the guy just wants a check and the fact that Phil "doesn't need the money" is not proof positive that it is an endorsement unless he either financially contributes to the regime or otherwise expressly supports the regime.  

You speak of nuance and then trot out that terrible analogy? Nobody's said Phil is literally murdering journalists and shit, but unlike the gardener who is most likely just gardening, Phil IS taking part in the PR aspect that seems to be one of the main reasons behind even having the tournament.

Like it or not, accepting a paycheck is seen as supporting or endorsing that candidate. A better analogy might be to look at bands that will refuse to play at or even license their songs to political campaigns. It's not like the gardener is actually doing something to support the insider trading, while Phil is doing something that actually supports the PR aspect of the SA govt.

1 hour ago, ncates00 said:

Now, as I have said man times previously, if Phil actually supports the regime (besides his playing and receiving a check), I'm right there with you who are against Phil.

And as I have said, and will hopefully say for the last time: by taking their money and participating in the PR scam, he is supporting them.

And once again, if you have nothing new to add, don't post.

[ncates00]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

While I was typing up a response, another lawyer pointed out what I think should be obvious to you, too, @ncates00: this isn't the U.S. legal system which strives to guarantee that even people everyone KNOWS are guilty have the fairest trial possible, the fairest sentencing possible, etc., the adversarial nature of which is kind of a bedrock as I understand it.

This is all this boils down to, and why you've again failed to add anything new. You don't think taking a check to take part in a PR stunt put on by a horrible organization is "supporting" that PR stunt and thus supporting the benefactors of the PR stunt, while most everyone else does.

That's it. That's your entire position, and frankly, mine as well (in disagreement).

You speak of nuance and then trot out that terrible analogy? Nobody's said Phil is literally murdering journalists and shit, but unlike the gardener who is most likely just gardening, Phil IS taking part in the PR aspect that seems to be one of the main reasons behind even having the tournament.

Like it or not, accepting a paycheck is seen as supporting or endorsing that candidate. A better analogy might be to look at bands that will refuse to play at or even license their songs to political campaigns. It's not like the gardener is actually doing something to support the insider trading, while Phil is doing something that actually supports the PR aspect of the SA govt.

And as I have said, and will hopefully say for the last time: by taking their money and participating in the PR scam, he is supporting them.

And once again, if you have nothing new to add, don't post.

And @DeadMan, ok y’all might have convinced me now. I don’t like it but you make good points. To be fair, I don’t like that Phil is doing it but I wanted to defend his legal and moral right to do so. But upon arguing with y’all, I think he is morally wrong too. 

Thanks for the good discussion. It helps when smart people push back with good reasoning 👍

[iacas]

Nobody ever said it was illegal.

But, if you're serious, good on you.

[Double Mocha Man]

9 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

And @DeadMan, ok y’all might have convinced me now. I don’t like it but you make good points. To be fair, I don’t like that Phil is doing it but I wanted to defend his legal and moral right to do so. But upon arguing with y’all, I think he is morally wrong too. 

Thanks for the good discussion. It helps when smart people push back with good reasoning 👍

Okay... now we can put together one big happy 12-some, play golf, and have beers afterwards.  But not in Saudi Arabia.  Or on a Trump course.  😃

Edited December 6, 2019 by Double Mocha Man
To add a smiley face so everyone knows I'm joking...

[dennyjones]

2 hours ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Okay... now we can put together one big happy 12-some, play golf, and have beers afterwards.  But not in Saudi Arabia.  Or on a Trump course.  😃

 

let me add some place that has sunshine and warmth!

[iacas]

Phil knows better - Golf Digest

---

A golfer who professes to understand the big picture conveniently overlooks it when it comes to playing in Saudi Arabia

Quote

Phil Mickelson is really smart, just ask him. As he told Golf Digest’s Guy Yocom back in 1991: "I don’t make a big deal about it, but yeah I’ve been tested [IQ]. It’s just over 200 . . . Just before my freshman year, some guys from Arizona State came to see me and they told me I could go straight to med school. They wanted me to be Doogie Howser. I told them thanks, but no.”

FWIW, an IQ of over 200 would make Phil the smartest person alive.

More importantly:

Now, there are other prominent American golfers likely banking large appearance fees for participating in the second edition of the Saudi European Tour event—like Patrick Reed, Dustin Johnson, Tony Finau, and Brooks Koepka—but the heat is on Phil because presumably he should know better. A worldly man on the cusp of 50, knowledgeable on subjects as wide ranging as wine, dinosaurs and subcutaneous fat (and really almost any topic you care to bring up, many golfers say), should know that the staging of a popular western sport in a country whose values are so antithetical to our own comes with certain dilemmas that cannot be quickly dismissed. See the uproar between China and the NBA that’s now lasted over a month. Just last year Saudi Arabia directed the assassination of a dissident journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, and so hosting a professional golf tournament is a stunt to rehabilitate its global image that the New York Times calls “Sportswashing”. Phil has to be aware of all this.

Just another source. Max Adler, Golf Digest.

[70sSanO]

I didn’t read all the posts, but here is an interesting quote from Phil...

“Given that I turn 50 this year, there’s a good chance I’ve played my last Phoenix Open. We’ll see.”

or in reading between the lines...

I probably won’t have to hear the boos at 16 after I turned my back on the stupid fans who supported me for decades.

John

Edited December 9, 2019 by 70sSanO

[70sSanO]

While I think Phil should not be playing because of all the reasons stated.  He is endorsing by his mere presence a government that has numerous instances of human rights violations.  As an elder statesman, so to speak, and future a HOF member of the PGA his presence does provide validation to the tournament.

But he could have handled it so much better to avoid some of the flack he is getting.

He could have used the same turning 50 logic and that he doesn't expect to have an opportunity to play the tournament again, (whether a true statement of not).  But the real response to put things into perspective would be to say... "Unlike the military weapons that have been sold to Saudi Arabia for decades, the products I use can't be used to kill Americans."

I spent 30 years in the defense industry and it is pretty amazing what products are sold to foreign countries.  The products are not the latest products, or upgraded version, and lack sensitive USG capability, but they none-the-less they represent some of the best that America has made.  Unfortunately, allies can become enemies is short order.  None of this is directed to a specific administration, party, or to be interpreted as political in nature.  It has been done for years.

What is the most amazing part of a Foreign Military Sale is that a branch of the service, say the Air Force, will negotiate a contract with a defense contractor using DOD acquisition regulations to the benefit of the foreign entity.  I was never able to get my head around hearing an Air Force officer tell Americans working for an American company that his job was looking out for the interests of the country of (insert name of country).  It was utterly mind boggling.

So, while I agree Phil should not play, hitting a golf ball seems to pale in comparison.

John

[iacas]

3 hours ago, 70sSanO said:

future a HOF member

FWIW, Phil is already in the World Golf Hall of Fame.

Mickelson, Phil

---

World Golf Hall of Fame in St. Augustine, Florida. Honoring golf's greatest players and contributors.

 

[Vinsk]

Not sure why Phil mentioned being 50 and not playing at the WM. There’s no rule against being 50. Kenny Perry I believe played in it several times over 50 no? 

[dsc123]

https://www.golfchannel.com/news/rory-mcilroy-not-interested-saudi-event-doesnt-excite-me

 

Rory says morality is part of his reason for not playing, while recognizing there's some hypocrisy in him saying so.

[ssbn611]

Every once in a while Mickelson’s true character peeks out. It is amusing to watch all those who have bought his career long b.s. become confused by it all. The signs are there. People just ignore them because ... smiley face.

[skydog]

Phil is not aging well...and I’m not talking about his game or looks or any of that. He just seems to be coming off the rails over the past few years and having a prolonged mid-life crisis. This is now part of an ongoing fact pattern of head scratching decisions from him. 

[Double Mocha Man]

2 minutes ago, skydog said:

Phil is not aging well...and I’m not talking about his game or looks or any of that. He just seems to be coming off the rails over the past few years and having a prolonged mid-life crisis. This is now part of an ongoing fact pattern of head scratching decisions from him. 

... and I hear he is driving a red convertible...

[BallStriker]

Much ado about nothing in my opinion...........I think it is great that some of the kids in the Kingdom will be given the opportunity to see some star power up close.......