Tom Toles by Tom Toles

Tom Toles


Comments (43) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, about 18 hours ago

    Libs want people to earn things they don’t deserve or didn’t work hard for based only on their race, instead of working hard, applying yourself, etc etc etc. Why do that if instead you just get to a job placed at a college as you edge out someone more QUALIFIED that they are just because they AREN’T of a certain race? There’s a phrase for that: Reverse Discrimination!

  2. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, about 18 hours ago

    Wow…before you berate me for not being smart enough….try learning how to SPELL college, you misspelled it TWICE! Then, learn how to use the proper usage of your and you’re. They’re (not there, or their), NOT interchangeable!

  3. jnik23260

    jnik23260 said, about 17 hours ago


    Okay, so his spelling isn’t top grade. But does that take anything away from his point?
    I guess not, since you chose to ignore the logic of his post and concentrate on his spelling – the one thing you can find fault with.

  4. Al S.

    Al S. said, about 17 hours ago


    If you’re going to be a grammar Nazi, creating run-on sentences just make YOU look foolish.

  5. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, about 15 hours ago

    In considering college admissions, should other factors than academic merit of the candidate be considered? Such as the wealth (or lack thereof) of his family? The fact that his parents are alumni of the college, or have never been to college? The fact that he is a fine athlete and would be an asset to the college’s team? The fact that he is a he and not a she? The fact that he has, by sheer grit, overcome great obstacles to get where he is? Who shows greater promise, the runner who comes in first, or the one who comes in a few seconds behind him with 5-pound weights on each ankle?

    In the this country today, black kids face barriers and carry burdens white kids don’t, even if it is better than it used to be. That is simply a fact, and ignoring it won’t make it go away, pretending it isn’t true anymore won’t make it go away. Taking that fact into account is in no way unfair or unjust. Letting that fact trump all other facts IS unfair and unjust. The Michigan law that was upheld bans the former practice, not just the latter.

    If demonstrated academic merit were the ONLY thing governing college admissions, then fewer rich kids, fewer athletes, and many fewer boys would get into college, or at least into the college of their choice. Kids that had the misfortune to attend average schools would have little chance against those who had the advantage of high-price prep schools and other privileges. And even academic merit is terribly hard to measure. A kid from a great school with a 3.0 gpa may be much better than a kid from a mediocre school with a 4.0 gpa. And standardized tests are hardly infallible.

    There are many kinds of “affirmative action” in play. Colleges prefer to have a rough boy-girl balance, they think it benefits everyone. So they admit boys with lower gpas and test scores than they do girls. Where is the outrage over that? Colleges think that all students will benefit by attending a college whose student body looks like America, and whose students have a variety of experiences to bring to the classroom. But bigots only want that student body to look like one part of America, and have one way of thinking and doing.

    Interestingly, California, some years ago, banned racial quotas and the like in the admission policies of its colleges. The result was a small decline in the number of black students AND a large decline in the number of WHITE students, and a great increase in the number of Asian students.

    Michigan has made a bone-headed law that does nothing but take from college admissions offices one of the tools used to judge a candidate’s merits. Yes it is a blunt and inexact tool, but it was not used in isolation. And let’s make one thing very clear: the Supreme Court has not declared the Michigan law to wise or just, they have merely declared it to be legal. Not the same thing at all.

    “This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,” Anthony Kennedy wrote, in an opinion joined by Roberts and Alito. “It is about who may resolve it."

  6. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, about 15 hours ago


    The world you live in is so simple and uncomplicated. Blacks and whites and primary colors only. You imagine two candidates for admission to a college or two applicants for a job. They are absolutely identical except in the color of their skin, and someone is unfairly choosing the black over the white simply because he is black. Or worse, even though he is lower in “merit” than the white candidate or applicant, “merit” being something easy, in your mind, to measure, and on a single scale. And those making the choice having no unconscious prejudices or other influences at work. And so you are angry at the “injustice” of it all.

    But that is not the real world at all. In the world that actually exists, identical job applications are treated differently based on the race of the applicant. White applicants have the advantage unless a conscious effort is made on the part of the hirer to overcome that tendency. “Color blind” is never really color blind. Even when the hirer does not know the race of the applicant, a Catherine will be called for an interview when a Kayeesha will not. It is not a question of “less qualified” being preferred over “more qualified.” It is about people who differently qualified. It is about inclusion, not exclusion. It is not about the fact of race being permitted to trump all other facts: it is about being able to take into account everything you know about someone in making a choice, and about having larger goals in mind for your business or college than just getting the highest-ranking people.

    For example, what if you college gets an award for have the best math program in the country, and for the next couple years all the students with the highest test scores in your applicant pool want to be math majors. And if you go strictly by test scores you won’t have enough desks in your math classes to accommodate them all, and you won’t have enough students in your other classes. What do you do? This is a silly and artificial example, but no more silly and artificial than the idealized examples of “reverse discrimination” that some people like to set up, and I just want to point out that sometimes a college has to consider what sort of student body as a whole it needs, not merely individual “merit” in an abstract sense.

    Guess what? I don’t think that anyone should get anything JUST because of his or her race. But it takes wilful blindness to think that has ever been the idea behind “affirmative action” or its weaker current version.

  7. ajnotales

    ajnotales said, about 12 hours ago

    Oh, c’mon everybody … let’s lay off of @PianoGuy24 … After all, he’s just a Troll (and a white one, I’d suspect) so he can’t help himself from spewing trollish jargon. Besides, he knows the difference between “there,” “their” and “they’re.” That has to count for something. Attaboy, Mr. PianoGuy24!

  8. DaSharkie

    DaSharkie GoComics PRO Member said, about 12 hours ago


    Yes it does. When you are belittling someone for being stupid, and you cannot use proper spelling, grammar, and diction……kind of makes you a hypocrite.

  9. Ted Lind

    Ted Lind GoComics PRO Member said, about 12 hours ago

    Affirmative action was intended to be a legal bias to help people of color play catch up in a world where they had been badly discriminated against. It was never intended to give a permanent advantage. The world has changed a lot. Discrimination of all kinds still happens and it affects many different people but the playing field is a lot more level that it used to be. A black kid with good grades and a solid work ethic will be able to succeed. A white kid who has lousy grades and sucks at getting anything done won’t.

  10. Mephistopholes

    Mephistopholes GoComics PRO Member said, about 11 hours ago

    @Ted Lind
    Well Said!!!!!

  11. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, about 11 hours ago


    There WAS no logic to his post. Eyes started rolling as soon as it turned into another Bush bash-fest. Yet, it was amusing to be berated as a “lazy moron who wouldn’t work hard enough to get the grades to get into a collage”. So, I chose to point out his stupidity. Also, I own my own business, for 15 years now. That’s not exactly possible if I were lazy.

  12. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, about 11 hours ago

    @Al S.

    As soon as you use “Nazi” you lose the conversation…

  13. Mr King

    Mr King said, about 11 hours ago

    @Al S.

  14. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, about 11 hours ago


    So…..instead of pointing out what was “trollish jargon”, you ridicule me instead….yeah, that’ll let me take you seriously.

  15. TheTrustedMechanic

    TheTrustedMechanic GoComics PRO Member said, about 11 hours ago


    You beet me two it. I wuz going too point owt that mispelling and misuse of homanims is kind of hypocritical when accusing others of being uneducated but that PG also was very pointed with ignoring the actual point being made. But really, is that a surprise? What is a surprise to me is that PG actually responded. But it is not a surprise that he ignored the point and attacked the point maker.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (28).