Where were the safeguards in book thefts?
As I read about the horrific thefts from the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh and the loss for our community and for future generations, I have to ask about those whose job it was and those who were appointed and accepted the responsibility to protect these irreplaceable assets. Where were they? What were their priorities?
The weekend article that accompanied the reports of the thefts (July 21, “Money Often Motivates Thieves to Purloin Books, Rare Maps, Prints”) pointed out the pervasiveness of rare book and document thefts and detailed five such incidents. The dates of arrests and indictments of the perpetrators included 1984, 1990 and 2004.
The Carnegie Library thefts occurred between the late 1990s and 2016. Obviously, these incidences (and probably many more) must have been well publicized and discussed in the library community. Why didn’t the library executives and board members take a more aggressive, if not just a more responsible, approach to protecting these important objects?
Why weren’t there regular third-party inventories and examinations? Why weren’t there cameras and other protections to prevent objects from just “walking out” the front door? Certainly, if found guilty, the thieves will be punished, but it seems that there are a number of other people who need to answer for why they ignored and were not more engaged in fulfilling their responsibilities.
They are ultimately complicit for allowing a loss of such magnitude. BOB STERN Shadyside
Walter becomes less sympathetic, however, as he begins to “break bad,” selling narcotics and committing desperate crimes. His transformation is complete when he declares to Skyler, his wife, “I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it. ... I was really — I was alive.” Crime had become his obsession, and adrenaline had become his “fix.”
Will the disclosed tapes reveal Mr. Cohen as sympathetic? Just an employee carrying out the wishes of his boss? What might have been Mr. Cohen’s motivation for “breaking bad”? Fancy cars? Expensive real estate? Or “feeling alive” with the adrenaline rush of arranging deals for a politically powerful person? Does Mr. Cohen possibly think the ends (achieving political office to realize some voters’ wishes) justify the means (unlawful activities)?
“Breaking Bad” is the “stuff of fiction.” News reports of secret tapes and planned bribes do not seem to be fiction but rather continued revelations of our twisted democracy. The 2018 midterm elections are Nov. 6. Hopefully, the results will diminish our daily onslaught of “regrettable news.” JANE OFFUTT
Mt. Lebanon
Regarding the July 19 article “Alcohol-Related Liver Deaths Have Increased Sharply, Experts Say”: As a biomedical scientist who has spent more than 30 years researching the health effects of alcohol, I was surprised to see the study authors point solely to excessive alcohol consumption for the increase in liver disease deaths.
The study did not take into account the many risk factors associated with cirrhosis, including obesity and viral hepatitis as well as medications that cause liver damage. For example, the epidemic of obesity in the 1990s is a major risk factor for liver cirrhosis and cancer and could be a major contributing factor for an increase in liver mortality.
Important, too, the authors base their findings on data abstracted from death certificates, which they acknowledge “may be inaccurate.” As the authors stated, “a death certificate can have a primary or underlying cause and up to 20 contributing causes.”
As a matter of public health and public policy, it is important that the full body of scientific literature is taken into account. Adults who choose to consume alcohol should do so responsibly and moderately, and, if they have any questions, should consult with their physician. For some people, the better choice may be to not drink at all. SAM ZAKHARI, PH.D. Senior Vice President of Science Distilled Spirits Council Washington, D.C.