Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   So no one would be dumb enough to step up to Felicity Huffman's defense in the "Varsity Blues" scandal? David Mamet: Hold my farkin' beer   (cbsnews.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Felicity Huffman, William H. Macy, Desperate Housewives, actress Felicity Huffman, Playwright David Mamet, older daughter's answers, longtime friend, Huffman's husband  
•       •       •

2428 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 13 Mar 2019 at 5:35 PM (7 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2019-03-13 03:59:24 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size

I'm sure Zosia Mamet earned her fame.
 
2019-03-13 04:30:14 PM  
This is similar to the argument that goes - "Hey, she was turning 18 in a couple months, it shouldn't really matter, amiright?"
 
2019-03-13 05:39:01 PM  
FTA: "For the uninitiated, the Texas Verdict is: 'Not Guilty, but Don't do it Again.'"

So you can break a law once an get off scot-free? Seems like a very limited purge
 
2019-03-13 05:42:08 PM  

Mega Steve: FTA: "For the uninitiated, the Texas Verdict is: 'Not Guilty, but Don't do it Again.'"

So you can break a law once an get off scot-free? Seems like a very limited purge


Having lived in Texas for the past 25 years, I have never heard of a Texas Verdict.
 
2019-03-13 05:49:26 PM  
I always thought a "Texas verdict" was lethal injection.
 
2019-03-13 05:51:21 PM  
David, a Texas Verdict traditionally involves a tall tree and a rope.
I know Macy's your friend, but you're not helping.
 
2019-03-13 05:52:14 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-13 05:56:16 PM  
This kind of case is why I'm so surprised when people put down Affirmative Action types of attempts to increase diversity in things like employment and education. "It should be solely based on qualifications" they say. Since when has it been based on qualifications?

Here we have a story where everyone can see what's really going on behind the scenes, that qualifications mean nothing if you have an alternative way to get your foot in the door.
 
2019-03-13 06:01:31 PM  
"I do not see the difference between getting a kid into school by bribing the Building Committee, and by bribing someone else. But, apparently, the second is against the Law. So be it," Mamet said.

I'll give it a shot. In the first scenario the university gets a new capital facility which will serve the university and student body for years to come. In the second a sleazy "broker" and coach get thousands of dollars, likely tax free, and the university gets an unqualified student while losing a qualified one.
 
2019-03-13 06:03:22 PM  
The writer, who has been nominated for two Oscars, said the admissions scam was similar to colleges admitting students because their parents made large donations. "I do not see the difference between getting a kid into school by bribing the Building Committee, and by bribing someone else. But, apparently, the second is against the Law. So be it," Mamet said.


I really don't get why it's so farking hard to grasp the difference.  The former you are openly buying your way in with the agreement of the people who govern and run the institution.  The scheme that these people were involved with involved actual deceit (faking or cheating on test scores) and if I read correctly money paid to the admissions department.

Now I get there is a fine line on what is a "bribe" - and certainly a several million dollar gift could be considered a type of bribe.  And I don't disagree that openly buying is in many ways just as bad as this scam/scheme... but the difference is the level of deceit involved in this scheme - it is cheating at the test level and cheating at the admissions level.

And also just because one is wrong on a social level (the open payment to an administration) doesn't somehow legitimize the use of this scheme.
 
2019-03-13 06:03:31 PM  
Someone get the guillotine!!  I'm sure this attitude is pervasive.

MY friends can't be criminals!!  WHAA!
 
2019-03-13 06:03:40 PM  

caddisfly: "I do not see the difference between getting a kid into school by bribing the Building Committee, and by bribing someone else. But, apparently, the second is against the Law. So be it," Mamet said.

I'll give it a shot. In the first scenario the university gets a new capital facility which will serve the university and student body for years to come. In the second a sleazy "broker" and coach get thousands of dollars, likely tax free, and the university gets an unqualified student while losing a qualified one.


Or, to translate to Mamet-speak: David farking Mamet is a farking washed up farking idiot.
 
2019-03-13 06:12:41 PM  
Mamet is a good writer?

His most notable work was Glengary Glen Ross and THAT may have won bases upon a Baldwin performance. He is a writer, but he is already a nobody to the Millennials and Gen Z.
 
2019-03-13 06:14:06 PM  
Stop.  Mamet Time!
 
2019-03-13 06:15:04 PM  
On one hand, i don't see how any jail would be of use here.... Fine her heavily.

But you can't really make the case that its a victimless crime, either.   I read in the indichtments... in one case, a particular college sports team had 3 open slots available to extend to (deserving) athletes, however all 3 slots had been filled by a scam student instead.   So.... thats 3 deserving kids, right there, missing out on a scholorship.
 
2019-03-13 06:15:44 PM  
The people who bought have a good chance of getting probation and a big fine.
The people who were bought are quite another story.
 
2019-03-13 06:17:14 PM  

madgonad: Mamet is a good writer?

His most notable work was Glengary Glen Ross and THAT may have won bases upon a Baldwin performance. He is a writer, but he is already a nobody to the Millennials and Gen Z.


Someone hasn't seen House of Games, or The Spanish Prisoner.
 
2019-03-13 06:21:32 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-13 06:22:07 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: madgonad: Mamet is a good writer?

His most notable work was Glengary Glen Ross and THAT may have won bases upon a Baldwin performance. He is a writer, but he is already a nobody to the Millennials and Gen Z.

Someone hasn't seen House of Games, or The Spanish Prisoner.


And The Postman Always Rings Twice.
 
2019-03-13 06:30:53 PM  

madgonad: Mamet is a good writer?

His most notable work was Glengary Glen Ross and THAT may have won bases upon a Baldwin performance. He is a writer, but he is already a nobody to the Millennials and Gen Z.


Baldwin is certainly memorable.  He was at the peak of his career, and the lines were great.     But lets not kid ourselves.... Jack Lemon was other-worldly.    He had a Simpsons character based of his portrayal, for goshsakes.    His desperation is what carries the film.
 
2019-03-13 06:34:35 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: madgonad: Mamet is a good writer?

His most notable work was Glengary Glen Ross and THAT may have won bases upon a Baldwin performance. He is a writer, but he is already a nobody to the Millennials and Gen Z.

Someone hasn't seen House of Games, or The Spanish Prisoner.


Don't forget Oleanna.

Mamet can be a great playright and still be a dickhead. And if he doesn't see the difference between a wealthy family transparently and very publicly paying for a building fully equipped with the latest CL2 lab tech that will benefit an entire faculty for decades to come, and some shady backroom deal that involves fabricating fraudulent credentials... Come onnnnnn!
 
2019-03-13 06:41:08 PM  
Huffman's husband, actor William H. Macy, who has not been charged, was in court as his wife was charged with conspiracy and posted a $250,000 bond, CBS News correspondent Carter Evans reports.

Holy shiat, a $250,000 bond? Jesus, I'll say it again, bail is the only legal tool more misused than eminent domain. Seriously, it's only supposed to be used to guarantee a flight risk person shows up for court. Yes, the woman has money and is a successful actress, but that doesn't mean that she's going to skip town.

Oh well. At least now I know what the hell was going on here. I thought Huffman and Loughlin were the ones whose parents got them into college, and I couldn't figure out why they were being charged so heavily. But that bond is ridiculous unless they believe that she is actually going to flee the country. And once again, money does not automatically make that a "thing".
 
2019-03-13 07:38:51 PM  
Jailing them accomplishes nothing.
Make every one of the parents give free ride scholarships to deserving and needy students. Three kids for everyone one their child displaced. Including room and board.
 
2019-03-13 07:46:48 PM  
Man, Felicity Huffman and Lori Laughlin must reaaaally hate their kids.
 
2019-03-13 07:55:58 PM  

Catlenfell: Jailing them accomplishes nothing.
Make every one of the parents give free ride scholarships to deserving and needy students. Three kids for everyone one their child displaced. Including room and board.


I'm okay with that.

The university employees and middle-men go to prison, tho.
 
2019-03-13 08:11:16 PM  

Catlenfell: Jailing them accomplishes nothing.
Make every one of the parents give free ride scholarships to deserving and needy students. Three kids for everyone one their child displaced. Including room and board.


Sounds perfect.  To Mamet's point, the standard uber-rich practice of buying your kid a seat is no better than what these people did, but at least that way finances scholarships and the like so a few poorer kids actually get a chance to go.  Forcing the creation of a scholarship seems like it's at least a way to bring things down to the typical, socially-recognized level of shiatty.
 
2019-03-13 08:19:02 PM  

Catlenfell: Jailing them accomplishes nothing.
Make every one of the parents give free ride scholarships to deserving and needy students. Three kids for everyone one their child displaced. Including room and board.


I like this idea.
Even if it's not in their sentences, I bet they do something like that on their Trying For Redemption PR Tours™.
 
2019-03-13 08:25:28 PM  
I'm starting to agree with the radical notion that it is now time to eat the rich.  We have gotten to the point where wealthy people rarely seem to receive significant punishment for criminal behavior.  They seem undeterred from criminal behavior by the prospect of punishment.  Go and steal some gas and Slim Jims at a 7-11, though, and see what your poor ass gets.  Don't get me started on relative taxation standards between wealthy and everybody else.  In Felicity Huffman's defense, she got the bargain price of $15K to buy admission for her kid.  Sounds like all these other alleged criminals paid much more.  I sincerely hope children of the guilty are summarily booted out of these colleges so they can continue their academic careers at their local junior college where they are likely more qualified for admission.  And, a deserving poor kid can be placed into the great university in their place.  I'd consider some kind of prosecution deal where these guilty farkers could "volunteer" to pay full scholarships for several poor but deserving students as penalty and restitution.  It would be fine if every one of these guilty parents spent a few months in jail so others would think long and hard before doing this crime.
 
2019-03-13 08:33:03 PM  
I don't know. After all the celebrity scandals over anti-vaxxing and sex cults and attempted rapes and coersion to force others to watch them masturbate, a good old fashioned case of rich people buying school admissions for their underachieving kids is kind of refreshing.
 
2019-03-13 08:33:26 PM  

caddisfly: "I do not see the difference between getting a kid into school by bribing the Building Committee, and by bribing someone else. But, apparently, the second is against the Law. So be it," Mamet said.

I'll give it a shot. In the first scenario the university gets a new capital facility which will serve the university and student body for years to come. In the second a sleazy "broker" and coach get thousands of dollars, likely tax free, and the university gets an unqualified student while losing a qualified one.


Plus of course the school will have a fixed number of places so some kid who earned their place gets kicked to the curb because someone who cheated got accepted. That kid could be suffering the effects of this for decades to come in lost earnings, lost job opportunities etc.
 
2019-03-13 08:36:23 PM  

Birnone: This kind of case is why I'm so surprised when people put down Affirmative Action types of attempts to increase diversity in things like employment and education. "It should be solely based on qualifications" they say. Since when has it been based on qualifications?

Here we have a story where everyone can see what's really going on behind the scenes, that qualifications mean nothing if you have an alternative way to get your foot in the door.


Well, it's simple. Those people know it isn't based on qualifications, and they really don't want it to be.
 
2019-03-13 08:56:49 PM  
"Tuition is for closers"?
 
2019-03-13 09:09:05 PM  

Catlenfell: Jailing them accomplishes nothing.
Make every one of the parents give free ride scholarships to deserving and needy students. Three kids for everyone one their child displaced. Including room and board.


so they not only get to buy their kids way into college, they get to buy their way out of jail.
 
2019-03-13 09:10:01 PM  
I don't care if it's only for 30 days or so, but if they are found guilty I think just a little bit of time in prison living with people that couldn't afford the best defense team and haven't lived an entitled life would do them some good.
 
2019-03-13 09:43:31 PM  

SirEattonHogg: The writer, who has been nominated for two Oscars, said the admissions scam was similar to colleges admitting students because their parents made large donations. "I do not see the difference between getting a kid into school by bribing the Building Committee, and by bribing someone else. But, apparently, the second is against the Law. So be it," Mamet said.


I really don't get why it's so farking hard to grasp the difference.  The former you are openly buying your way in with the agreement of the people who govern and run the institution.  The scheme that these people were involved with involved actual deceit (faking or cheating on test scores) and if I read correctly money paid to the admissions department.

Now I get there is a fine line on what is a "bribe" - and certainly a several million dollar gift could be considered a type of bribe.  And I don't disagree that openly buying is in many ways just as bad as this scam/scheme... but the difference is the level of deceit involved in this scheme - it is cheating at the test level and cheating at the admissions level.

And also just because one is wrong on a social level (the open payment to an administration) doesn't somehow legitimize the use of this scheme.


If Daddy buys the school a  new building everyone gets to use the new building.

If Daddy buys the rowing coach a new car, only the rowing coach gets to use the car.
 
2019-03-13 09:59:10 PM  

caddisfly: "I do not see the difference between getting a kid into school by bribing the Building Committee, and by bribing someone else. But, apparently, the second is against the Law. So be it," Mamet said.

I'll give it a shot. In the first scenario the university gets a new capital facility which will serve the university and student body for years to come. In the second a sleazy "broker" and coach get thousands of dollars, likely tax free, and the university gets an unqualified student while losing a qualified one.


Except when they "donate" those buildings:
- they never donate continuing funding for maintenance, utilities, staffing, insurance, etc.
- they keep adding buildings they don't use b/c if they stopped asking for new buildings, they're scared they won't get them when they might actually need them (the UCLA chancellor was asking for a luxury hotel on campus for visiting lecturers/dignitaries)
- they spend so farking much of their money on people whose only job it is to go look for money, and then they turn around and raise tuition/kick out California kids b/c they don't pay as much as foreign/out of state (granted, the biggest issue there is the state just giving up b/c Prop 13)
- they get a huge farking write off on those building donations, which may or may not be cheaper than the taxes they would owe
- they always renovated the farking buildings in between my apartment and my classes, every farking semester, no matter where my classes were and no matter where my apartment was, and I had to walk around and through scaffolding for four farking years
 
2019-03-13 10:02:50 PM  

caddisfly: "I do not see the difference between getting a kid into school by bribing the Building Committee, and by bribing someone else. But, apparently, the second is against the Law. So be it," Mamet said.

I'll give it a shot. In the first scenario the university gets a new capital facility which will serve the university and student body for years to come. In the second a sleazy "broker" and coach get thousands of dollars, likely tax free, and the university gets an unqualified student while losing a qualified one.


This. While a large donation to get your kid into a school is a bit scummy, the university knows exactly what sort of kid they are getting and gets the money to open up slots for at least 10 more worthy students. In the Varsity Blues hijinks, the records were changed and lots were used intended for athletes or better students. The transcripts were disguised and wire fraud and tax fraud occurred.
 
2019-03-13 10:58:58 PM  

caddisfly: "I do not see the difference between getting a kid into school by bribing the Building Committee, and by bribing someone else. But, apparently, the second is against the Law. So be it," Mamet said.

I'll give it a shot. In the first scenario the university gets a new capital facility which will serve the university and student body for years to come. In the second a sleazy "broker" and coach get thousands of dollars, likely tax free, and the university gets an unqualified student while losing a qualified one.


One is paying a premium for better service, the other is fraud. So much fraud.

"You sold that guy a meet-and-greet package, so I don't see the problem with me giving the stagehand $20 and a bj to let me sneak backstage." - excerpt from "A Mamet Goes to a Concert"
 
2019-03-13 11:07:41 PM  
Everywhere you look
Everywhere yo go
There's a bribe
There's a bribe
There's a hand to give cash to
 
2019-03-13 11:13:08 PM  

pissnmoan: I'd consider some kind of prosecution deal where these guilty farkers could "volunteer" to pay full scholarships for several poor but deserving students as penalty and restitution. It would be fine if every one of these guilty parents spent a few months in jail so others would think long and hard before doing this crime.


Agreed. Sad fact is, we'll probably see neither. They'll likely plead in exchange for a nominal fine and probation, at most.

Personally, I don't give that much of a shiat about the parents. Cheating, entitled twats trying to game the system (to "selflessly" help their kids) are pretty much a given, everywhere; the bigger social problem is systemic corruption, itself.

So, the focus here should be on the ones soliciting the bribes, not the ones offering them -- i.e., the university officials (especially the public ones, who are agents of the state) and the assholes pretending to be a charity that helps disadvantaged kids (while doing the complete opposite thing): those are the farkers that need a lengthy time-out from society.

/and not because I think they'll learn anything, either; just because they earned it
 
6 days ago  
The difference between this and bribing a school by buying them a building is mostly that the latter, while dubious in ethical terms, is legally generally above-board and public, to the point of even most public schools having legacy admission policies of some kind (though public schools aren't allowed to outright have a separate admissions pool for legacies, which is how the Ivy League manages to admit so many illiterate morons).  The impact is in the sense of the long-term reputation of the business suffering, not an actual crime occurring... and it kind of has, honestly in most fields no one is particularly impressed by a lot of the private college diplomas anymore because of a large number of high-profile incompetent morons being churned out due to overuse of alternative admissions.

What the woman in TFA did was actually falsify official documentation, and engage in a criminal conspiracy to do it.  It's not really the end goal that's the problem or even the method in the really general sense of bribery being involved.  It's that the specifics of what she was bribing someone to do involved an actual white-collar felony, not something they were actually legally allowed to do.

Like... if we're in a parking lot and I want your spot, I'm allowed to find you and offer you a hundred bucks to move your car.  If I instead pay five bucks to a nearby homeless person to cut all of your brake lines so that we can push your car into the river to get it out of the way... the reason that's a problem and the first thing isn't is not that the bribe was smaller for "the same goal".
 
6 days ago  

pissnmoan: I'm starting to agree with the radical notion that it is now time to eat the rich.


The thing I keep coming back to is that these are people that have the wealth and stature to pay for the best tutors and private schooling for their children where they could have earned their spot fairly out of merit.

...but they didn't.

The rich ARE different than us and maybe we should start treating them that way.
 
6 days ago  

Tyrone Slothrop: madgonad: Mamet is a good writer?

His most notable work was Glengary Glen Ross and THAT may have won bases upon a Baldwin performance. He is a writer, but he is already a nobody to the Millennials and Gen Z.

Someone hasn't seen House of Games, or The Spanish Prisoner.


Difficulty:  Rebecca Pidgeon

/she's intolerable
 
6 days ago  

caddisfly: I'll give it a shot. In the first scenario the university gets a new capital facility which will serve the university and student body for years to come.


I hereby dedicate this building to...me!

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
6 days ago  

Jim_Callahan: Like... if we're in a parking lot and I want your spot, I'm allowed to find you and offer you a hundred bucks to move your car. If I instead pay five bucks to a nearby homeless person to cut all of your brake lines so that we can push your car into the river to get it out of the way... the reason that's a problem and the first thing isn't is not that the bribe was smaller for "the same goal".


I guess the problem I have is that the "legitimate" way isn't comparable to your example, because people aren't giving up their seat/spot willingly.  The homeless person cutting the brake line is valid, but even doing things the "right" way is more like going to the owner of the parking lot and saying "here's $100 to have somebody's car towed so I can park there instead."  All of a sudden, the two look a lot closer.  (To be fair, a more charitable read of their behavior would be "here's $10,000 to expand the parking lot if you'll give me one of the spaces.")

Of course what these people did is illegal, and of course they should be punished for it.  The only problem I'm having is finding an indignant outrage when we've all apparently decided that the old-fashioned bribery is just fine as long as it's open, blatant bribery.
 
6 days ago  

Skarekrough: pissnmoan: I'm starting to agree with the radical notion that it is now time to eat the rich.

The thing I keep coming back to is that these are people that have the wealth and stature to pay for the best tutors and private schooling for their children where they could have earned their spot fairly out of merit.

...but they didn't.

The rich ARE different than us and maybe we should start treating them that way.


This is the end result of thinking your kid is the most gifted, smartest, prettiest, athletic, and wonderful child in the universe, and having the further delusion that your money can make the rest of world agree with you.  The rest of us think all of the above about our kids, right up to the moment they leave the house for their first play date and some other little kid shows off and our kid doesn't cut it.  Or in a worst case, our kid is prefect until puberty kicks in, and we realize we have raised a dumbass and all the tutoring in the world isn't going to get them a scholarship.  Community college and the hair stylist degree it is.
 
6 days ago  

Last Man on Earth: Of course what these people did is illegal, and of course they should be punished for it.  The only problem I'm having is finding an indignant outrage when we've all apparently decided that the old-fashioned bribery is just fine as long as it's open, blatant bribery.


Also known as a purchase.
 
6 days ago  
This thread is pretty interesting for fark.

On most days here at fark we see people arguing athletes shouldn't take spots from students, especially when the same academic standards are not met.

Now we see farkers arguing that these athletes were deserving of that spot.

The money changing hands is the only crime here. When I was looking at colleges my dad knew people on the admissions board at one of them. He scored me an in person interview which wasn't very common and I got to meet with the athletic director etc

All perfectly legal and all because of someone's connections.

Now no money changed hands but I'm sure it came in to play when deciding to offer me a spot
 
6 days ago  

kindms: This thread is pretty interesting for fark.

On most days here at fark we see people arguing athletes shouldn't take spots from students, especially when the same academic standards are not met.

Now we see farkers arguing that these athletes were deserving of that spot.

The money changing hands is the only crime here. When I was looking at colleges my dad knew people on the admissions board at one of them. He scored me an in person interview which wasn't very common and I got to meet with the athletic director etc

All perfectly legal and all because of someone's connections.

Now no money changed hands but I'm sure it came in to play when deciding to offer me a spot


Had they been paying just to get a second look or a friendly reference, I'd partially agree (there'd still be some tax fraud etc). But generally speaking, what they were apparently paying for was an accomplice who would help them to defraud the university into admitting them on the basis of substantial lies about their records and qualifications, supported with fake documents, photoshopped pics, cheated test scores, etc.
 
6 days ago  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: kindms: This thread is pretty interesting for fark.

On most days here at fark we see people arguing athletes shouldn't take spots from students, especially when the same academic standards are not met.

Now we see farkers arguing that these athletes were deserving of that spot.

The money changing hands is the only crime here. When I was looking at colleges my dad knew people on the admissions board at one of them. He scored me an in person interview which wasn't very common and I got to meet with the athletic director etc

All perfectly legal and all because of someone's connections.

Now no money changed hands but I'm sure it came in to play when deciding to offer me a spot

Had they been paying just to get a second look or a friendly reference, I'd partially agree (there'd still be some tax fraud etc). But generally speaking, what they were apparently paying for was an accomplice who would help them to defraud the university into admitting them on the basis of substantial lies about their records and qualifications, supported with fake documents, photoshopped pics, cheated test scores, etc.


extreme yes. but is it that different when parents write the essay questions ? or kids pad out the clubs and volunteering etc etc.

or when the university does it so they can get an athlete in ?

if this story was that the school athletic director cooked the books to land some star athlete it might result in vacated wins. but everyone would say it happens all the time
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report