Since being involved in the now infamous Sour Patch Kids incident last week, I have been met with nothing but support from the Wesleyan community. Everywhere I go, people are all like, “Hey man, that shit is crazy, you better not have to pay that fine,” or, “Al, what can I do to help you fight this injustice?” And I thank you all for the words of encouragement. Two Wespeaks in last Friday’s Argus, however, revealed that there are at least two people who think otherwise. Not surprisingly, one of these Wespeaks was written by Officer Clark himself, while the other comes from angry Middletown resident Jesse Drake. Now, for the first time, I feel that I need to defend myself in the face of these accusations, and what better way to do it than with a Wespeak of my own.

Officer Clark’s Wespeak, “Setting the record straight,” (April 11, 2008, Volume CXLIII, Number 39) presents some circumstantial evidence that actually does very little to set anything straight. Clark writes, “Mr. Fertig could have tossed the candy onto the green to his left, but for some unknown reason, chose to toss the candy toward my patrol car.” Apparently Clark views this as sufficient evidence that my Sour Patch projectile was meant as a personal attack on himself or his patrol car. Also, does this imply that had I thrown the Kid to my left, Officer Clark would not have minded? I think it does, and so it is clearer to me now more than ever that the littering ticket was nothing more than Clark’s attempt to get revenge on what he thought was a drunk college student in need of some straightening out. But the real problem here is that the Wespeak completely ignores the true issue at hand: how completely unprofessionally Clark acted that morning. He was out of line, and he knows it. So I guess it doesn’t really surprise me that he completely failed to address the most important part of the incident: the whole 15 minutes in which he harassed and abused me over a piece of candy. And as for the “courtesy” that he extended by not charging me with C.G.S. 14-146, well, Clark should remember that Section 14-146 of Connecticut’s general statutes only applies to objects “which may cause injury to such vehicle or the tires thereon or to any person therein.” I challenge anyone to try and hurt himself with a Sour Patch Kid; go ahead, see if you can so much as put a smudge on your windshield with one of those little guys.

“Setting the record straight” may be extremely misleading, but it’s Jesse Drake’s Wespeak (“Litterers should pay,” April 11, 2008, Volume CXLIII, Number 39) that really gets on my sack. Man, I thought that Wesleyan students were supposed to be preachy and assuming, but this Middletown resident will not be outdone. I still cannot be sure that the Wespeak is not meant as sarcasm. Anyway, I don’t think that Drake has ever even seen a Sour Patch Kid, or else he or she would never have accused me of throwing a candy wrapper, for as all Sour Patch lovers should know, they are not individually wrapped! All I did was throw a tiny man-shaped lump of sugar into the road, completely biodegradable and harmless. It is no more harmful to the environment and the Middletown community than an apple core, or, um, a twig. Drake, you’re the one who should be ashamed, for making so many gross assumptions about me. As you may not know, many Wesleyan students, including me, are only able to afford our educations thanks to a lot of financial aid, and no, those $219 are not something that me or my parents have the luxury to sneeze at. It is clear that you don’t think very highly of Wesleyan students, but we are not all a bunch of heathens out to destroy Middletown. It’s my community too, so please don’t call me an “ill-mannered transient.” So now it’s my turn to make an assumption about you; I’m sure that you have littered at some point in your life, and it was probably much more substantial than a little sugar. Litterers should pay? Writers of stupid Wespeaks should pay.

Oh, and by the way, the $100 Wespeak award would go a long way in helping me pay that fine.