You think some "indignities" are too "insignificant" to be noted in the Reader [Letters, February 20, re "Exit Wounds," February 6]. No doubt. But I question someone's judgment about which ones they are if it excludes too many of those visited upon citizens by their "public servants."
If you are worried about the best "way to use newsprint," I think there are many things (or some other things!) besides Mr. Joravsky's writings that could be omitted in favor of more (productive!) stories about our problems with crime, corruption, and education (just to mention the few that J. Marsh does).
And I agree in sometimes not seeing the point of some stories--but for a different reason: there's no follow-up, so we don't know if someone is still holding officials' feet to the fire, or trying to practice gentle persuasion, or what--and we don't have a chance to feel better about our city or be moved by the efforts' successes or failures somehow to become more active--and intelligent--citizens ourselves.
It seems to me the big (less "silly") problems mentioned exist partly because not enough people are that.
So I'm happy at least to see how our "public servants" and the government machinery work, even in "smaller" things--and hope maybe it can reduce a little the number of those who feel nothing changes, nothing can be done.
Finally (almost), I'd like to say that people "sitting on their asses" in lousy traffic for longer periods might do more personal harm than J. Marsh lets on.
But mainly (besides my own hopes for improved media) I look forward to seeing a list of what J. Marsh would do to cope with the bigger problems he describes.