Letters to the Editor, Summer 2015

I didn’t actually read the feature essay in the last edition, but I’d still like to complain about it in the strongest terms. Why must these pathetic leftists always – [Rest of letter to remain unpublished, due to lack of interest – Ed.]

—Sincerely, Gerard Henderson

Thank you for Waleed Aly’s insightful and eloquent essay in the January edition. As a white woman living in Woollahra, I’ve come to cherish Waleed as a non-threatening Muslim voice. Reading his pieces always makes me feel so progressive and tolerant, and I love that he doesn’t sport a long beard or weird robes in his picture byline. Often when I’m at a charity lunch or cocktail function, and the talk turns to politics, I like to impress the other girls by saying something terribly clever that I’ve stolen from Waleed – can you believe it?! If you’d told me 10 years ago that all of my social chit chat and opinions would be lifted directly from a Muslim I would have said you were mad! But then I guess Waleed’s not really a proper Muslim, is he? He’s more like one of us. In many ways, I feel he’s become the voice for white, middle-class liberals everywhere. Is he available to MC the next fundraiser for my tennis club?

—Elizabeth Way, Woollahra

I’m thoroughly disappointed with The Chaser Quarterly’s decision to fire Mark Latham as a regular columnist. His column was always the best thing about your magazine, and I particularly loved his profile, in your last edition, on the young Pakistani education activist and Nobel laureate Malala (“Deranged Slut”, June 2015). As someone who’s always looked up to Mark Latham, I will sorely miss his regular public musings about women.

—Yours, Nick Kyrgios

It’s come to my attention that my previous letter wasn’t printed in full. As such I’ve written four more letter of complaint which – [Rest of letter to remain unpublished, for the sake of everyone’s sanity – Ed.]

—Sincerely, Gerard Henderson

Over the years I have always enjoyed reading The Chaser Quarterly, and I especially admire the variety of different voices and points of view that appear in your journal. I particularly liked David Marr’s essay on Tony Abbott, as well as David Marr’s essay on Kevin Rudd, and also David Marr’s essay on Bill Shorten, and I also enjoyed David Marr’s essay on Malcolm Turnbull. But if your mission statement is to profile the country’s most intriguing and influential political figures, then why on earth have you denied your readers an essay on Warren Truss? As politicians go, they don’t come much more fascinating. I can only assume that, as a subject, Truss is so multi-faceted and complex that any profile piece on him will always take longer to prepare and write. I trust that this is something David Marr is already hard at work on, and if he needs any assistance, he mustn’t hesitate to get in touch. I’m more than happy to make myself available for an interview.

—Regards, Warren Truss

Further to my letter dated September 19th, I wish to – [You get the drill by now – Ed.]

—Sincerely, Gerard Henderson

Tim Flannery’s 13,000-page essay on the decimation of our forests (“Striving for a Paperless Future”, April 2015) should be a timely wake-up call to anyone who doesn’t wish to see the senseless logging of our trees just to create more paper. The essay’s blunt message that we all need to minimize our use of hard-copy paper in order to save the environment was so compelling that I made two hundred photocopies of the essay to pass on to my friends. I also printed out copies of Gerard Henderson’s 8000 page letter of reply to Tim Flannery. With more education (please see additional documents and thick textbooks enclosed in envelope) I truly hope this important message will start
to sink in.

—Yours, Roberta Glynnis.

In our last edition, Mark Latham was quoted as describing the former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela as a “mean, bitter, self-centered, loathsome and egotistical waste of space.” However we now accept that Mr Latham’s remarks were not made in relation to the late Mr Mandela, but referred instead to himself. We apologise for our error, and agree with Mr Latham’s assessment.