Opinion
Thursday, June 29, 1995 Page 4
Nebraskan
Editorial Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Joel Strauch..Editor, 472-1766
Gerry Beltz ..Features Editor
Jennifer Miratsky.. .Copy Desk Chief
Understanding
Cartoon opinion, not truth
The Daily Nebraskan would like to clarify the intentions of last
week’s political cartoon. This cartoon was meant to make a
statement about the arrest of Francisco Renteria, it was not a
direct attack at Officer Luke Wilke.
This cartoon portrayed Wilke holding a nightstick. It was
known to the artist of this cartoon and the editor of this paper that
Wilke did not use a nightstick in his arrest of Renteria.
But it has also been reported by witnesses that Wilke’s arrest
tactics might have been a little harsh.
We did not mean to imply that Wilke beat Renteria with a
nightstick. We did intend to imply that it is our opinion that
excessive force was used during this arrest.
Political cartoons have been used almost as long as politics has
been around. And they have always been given certain license in
their expression.
During the ’60s and ’70s, cartoons about President Nixon
showed him climbing out of the sewer. But most people knew
that Nixon was from California, not a sewer.
If people inferred that Wilke beat Renteria with a nightstick,
we want them to know that this was an exaggeration.
Some concern has also been expressed about the fact that
Wilke’s name was used in the cartoon.
When political cartoons are aimed at widely known figures like
President Clinton or Kato, nametags are unnecessary.
But when the cartoon addresses less well-known figures like
Jan Stoney or Luke Wilke, labels are often necessary to illumi
nate the background for the common reader.
This cartoon was not meant as a personal attack on Wilke, but
a political statement about the arrest of Renteria.
We hope this editorial will clear up the misunderstandings that
many readers had about the cartoon and help people comprehend
what a political cartoon is and the function that it has as a vehicle
of opinion.
Nebraskan
Editor Joel Strauch, 472-1766
Features Editor Gerry Bettz
Copy Desk Editors Jennifer Mlratsky
Courtney Met Meson
Photo Chief TannaKmneman
Art Director James Meheling
General Manager Daniel Shattil
Production Manager Katherine Poiicky
Advertising Manager Amy Struthers
Asst. Advertising Manager Laura Wilson
Publications BoardChairman Tim Hedegaard, 472-2988
Professional Adviser Don Walton, 473-7301
The Daily Nebraskan (USPS 144-060) is published by the UNL Publications Board,
Nebraska Union 34,1400 R St., P.O. Box 880448, Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448, weekdays
during the academic year (except holidays); weekly during the summer session.
Readers are encouraged to submit story ideas and comments to the Daily Nebraskan by
phoning 472-1763 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. The public also has
access to the Publications Board. For information, contact Tim Hedegaard, 472-2588.
Subscription price is $50 for one year.
Postmaster: Send address changes to the Daily Nebraskan, Nebraska Union 34,1400
R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448. Second-class postage paid at Lincoln, NE.
_ALL MATERIAL COPYRIGHT 1995 DAILY NEBRASKAN_
r -^
m,HWEU HE.
RECEDES THIS
PteS UCs DEFIHITEiy
V!« THE
\ GLOMES.
.
And God says...
In an opinion written by a student
June 15,1995, the large print portrays
that abortion was the only answer, but
I am thankful for the small print.
“I went back to the waiting room
and realized that three women who
were there in the beginning had disap
peared.”
I am thankful that three women
may have chosen to give their children
the opportunity to live and attend col
lege, to experience ajob and be able to
do all the things they were created to
do.’
My confidence continues in that
for those three women and their chil
dren, there is no hell, if they chose to
receive the love of God in Jesus Christ
as the answer.
Dennis Brink
Professor
Animal Sciences
I am responding to the anonymous
letter printed on June 15, 1995. Inci
dentally, why can’t this response re
main anonymous?
It was interesting to read an actual
account of what happens inside an
abortion mill. “Clinic” is such a nice
word, isn’t it? It in no way obscures
the harsh reality of what occurs within.
I am, however, thankful they dis
cussed other life-giving options with
you. But ifwe close ourselves to God’s
will and His guidance in all our “deci
sions,” ours is a similar fate: separa
tion from God because of sin.
“The wages of sin is death,” in this
case the physical death of your baby.
You didn’t save yourself on the table.
You allowed the murdering of your
innocent child.
Because of sin, a part of you surely
died along with your child. It wasn’t
your insides that were sucked out. It
was various parts of your baby!
You traded job experience, one
semester and your relationship with
your boyfriend for a human life! Fair
trade, I’d say.
The Bible is clear about the pres
ence of a child in-utero. Psalms 147:13
states, “He has blessed your children
within you.” We’re all made “in his
image; male and female He created
us.”
Jesus encourages us to “take up our
cross and follow Him.” Jesus asked
you to take up the cross of single
motherhood, or to choose adoption,
postponing your plans temporarily for
the eternal life of your baby.
Why not ask what Jesus would have
you do? What would Jesus say to the
abortionist? To the Supreme Court?
To those who think a personal “choice”
is somehow more important than a
person?
Not until we all repent, make repa
ration for our sins, and include God in
every facet of our lives, will we be
able to recognize evil and fully under
stand the gravity ofour offenses against
each other, but most of all against He
who knit us in our mother’s womb.
Richard O'Hearn, P.E.
Project Manager
Facilities
Insensitivity
This letter is regarding the edito
rial and cartoon which appeared in
your newspaper on June 22. It is my
hope that ypu take Ihisletter construc
tively.
If the editor, the editorial staff and
Mr. Mehsling do not become involved
in some legal action by Mr. Wilke, it
will be a surprise to me and a result of
Mr. Wilke’s extraordinary good na
ture.
This is irresponsible journalism at
best and a demonstration of your pro
found insensitivity to the community
you live in and your ignorance of the
facts involved in the Renteria tragedy.
What I find amazing is that you
have completely ignored facts gath
ered by one of your staff reporters,
Catherine Blalock, who covered Mr.
Wilke’s trial in your newspaper. You
stubbornly persist in framing Mr.
Renteria’s initial encounter with po
lice as a mistake and racist. It is time
you open your eyes and ears.
Mr. Renteria was approached by
that UNL Police Officer for QUES
TIONING. He was not identified by
“mistake.” Ifyou don’t understand the
difference then this letter has been a
waste of time.
Pathologists who testified at Mr.
W i Ike ’ s trial cannot agree on the cause
of Mr. Renteria’s death. Witnesses
cannot agree on what they saw the
police officers do. But yet, it is obvi
ous, according to your editorial, who
you believe should be blamed for his
death.
I know for sure that your ignorance
of facts, your extensive use of innu
endo and your insensitivity to what
the police officers have gone through,
are fanning the fires of racism and
prejudice on both sides of this contro
versy.
Our community doesn’t need this
from you and your newspaper.
LesVeskrna .