Now Let Me Talk to Phil Mickelson

(Any comments, please register them at dadofprince@gmail.com. Thanks!)

I want to talk to Phil Mickelson now.

Now that we know that at least 655 people, by last count which in all likelihood is short several hundred, have been shot trying to cross the border between Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia.

Now that we know that the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, journalist for The Washington Post, wasn't just a one-off that might have gone wrong (or so I'm sure it's being spun).

Now that we know that Saudi Arabia is the paranoid, repressive dictatorship that anyone who's been watching carefully has understood for years.

Now I want to ask him: Do you get it at last? Is this enough of an indication that the millions you took for joining the 'rebel' LIV golf tour was, and is, deep red blood money?

That you are, by direct implication, supporting a regime that would do this to people?

Of course Saudi Arabia's government denies the charges. And you can count on the simple fact that that information was sneaked out of the country by unidentified sources who would soon be killed, like Khashoggi, if they were ever caught alone or naively drawn into a trap, like he was.

So they can trash such sources because they'll never step forward. Which is what authoritarian dictatorships succeed in doing: muzzling information by demonstrating why sources should be fearful.

But back to Phil: He, as well as other outstanding golfers such as Brooks Koepka and Cameron Smith, took guaranteed money upfront--millions of dollars in Saudi chump change, to add legitimacy to their "sports washing" plans to make themselves look somehow culturally mainstream, or at least leaning that way.

When they did that, they conveniently overlooked Saudi Arabia's awful, ongoing record on human rights. The money was being dispensed in the tens of millions.That made it pretty appealing, granted, but you'd think, with the kind of discipline it takes to be a successful golfer at the highest level, that that discipline could be extended as far as refusing blood money.

But as far as Phil was concerned, you could easily assume that the money would be too much to turn back. Two reasons for this: One, Phil is now over 50 years old. That he is still playing the game at an elite level is to his credit, of course, and he won the PGA Championship at age 50 at Kiawah Island, no pitch-and-putt track. But he can see the calendar like anybody else, and his window of competitiveness is closing. So dangling ten million dollars (or so; but that's a typical offer) in front of his face might make anybody jump.

But the second reason is more jaded: His gambling. It's recently been revealed that Mickelson has gambled away one billion dollars. That means losses. That means whatever he's done in charitable work could have been improved or buttressed incredibly with even half that much money. It's instructive to remember that if you were given one billion dollars at the rate of a dollar a second, it would take the benefactor more than 32 years to pay you off.

Phil Mickelson has frittered all that away with expressiveness that he would call "fun." Little surprise, then, that he'd lunge at ten million (or so) dollars. I've read nothing he's said that indicates that he's done gambling or has reined it in in any way. It would be ridiculous to assume, then, that he wouldn't take some of that and gamble it away, too.

But I don't feel sorry for him in the least. He's been the prime participant in corrupting a major sport that seemed above corruption, and being paid for it indirectly by a regime that also claims itself to be above corruption but is one of the most corrupt on the planet because it's an authoritarian monarchy that rules by conjured fiat.

Part of that corruption is the murder of hundreds of migrants, and the underlying assumption that, somehow, they don't deserve the better life that they're seeking (a problem some of us seem to be having here in the U.S., too, let's not forget, with razor wire along the Rio Grande).

I wonder if Phil Mickelson and his fellow LIV golfers have given any thought to that. If they want, they can just drag out the lame excuse that they don't pay any attention to politics. They just play golf and let the rest sort itself out. Something like that.

But is this politics? Are human rights an issue of debate? Not if you put ten million dollars in someone's pockets, I guess. That discussion apparently becomes moot.

I was sickened when the LIV group first broke away from the PGA. The Khashoggi murder compromised it from the start. That it's trying to rejoin through conjunction with the PGA now, with financial strength and nothing else to hold it hostage, deepens the illness. 

I like watching golf because I've played the game since I was ten, but I won't watch the LIV. I won't patronize such corruption of fatuous profiteering with the minimum of effort (because the players are paid handsomely regardless of how they finish in a tournament; they don't have to earn anything and, with a no-cut policy,  it doesn't matter if they play poorly). It spoils my viewpoint of it all.

But I want to tell Phil Mickelson off. He obviously has no principles other than bathing himself in megabucks, even though he's made megamillions. He bolted to the LIV because he believed the PGA could have loosened its moneybags. That he has turned out to be right about that hasn't brought him back into the fold, though. Ironically, that would be too big a risk, because he wouldn't be betting on chance. 

He'd be betting on himself. Too much of a gamble, I guess. Meanwhile, the country underwriting his and others' enormous largesse shoots hundreds at its border. Is it true that the more money you have, the less you need a conscience?

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark