If you really wanted to rescue the economics of Zimbabwe and Zambia, you'd call for an emergency airlift of British colonial administrators and former Rhodesian officials to oversee the reconstruction of those unfortunate states. The ruinous economic effects of tribal dictatorship might then be reversed, and both nations restored to their former prosperity.
Joseph T. Quinlan
WRITERS PICK ON ATHLETES
Life has gotten dreadful when a professional athlete's career can be decided in the sports pages and not on the playing field. After a whole summer of the Daily News sports writers persecuting various members of the Phillies as well as other sports teams, I have become sympathetic toward these guys.
If all the sports teams left the city, all these sports journalists (ha) would have to get a real job. What a tough life they must have now, getting paid to watch sporting events, and the rest of us have to pay to get in. And it is pretty obvious that we, the fans, appreciate it more.
I would like to know who Bill Conlin thinks he is writing for. Who does he think reads the paper, certainly not the Harvard Literary Review Board. Hey Bill, why not try to communicate with the masses? Why can't he just write about the game and not pollute the paper with his ridiculous literary allusions? Granted some spice is needed to sell newspapers, but Conlin has gone off the deep end. He sounds like some frustrated greeting card writer.
ENFORCE THE PARKING LAWS
The city is always complaining it never has any money to pay its workers, build a convention center, etc. It always has to run to Harrisburg and beg the governor for financial help.
If Philadelphia and its mayor would enforce its laws consistantly, it would not be necessary to have to beg every year for money. It seldom enforces violations when it pertains to the automobile. Every day, I see vehicles double-parked and sometimes triple-parked, and nothing is done about it. Don't laws forbid this? Where are the police to enforce these laws?
In South Philadelphia alone, the city could make a fortune by giving tickets to owners of illegally parked cars. The police have to just ride up and down Broad Street and patrol Oregon Avenue every day of the week, and they would be able to issue an extremely large number of tickets. If they did this all over town, the city would get money for what they need and they would not have to bother the governor every year for money. Just enforce your laws, Philadelphia, that's all.
Gerald J. Ziccardi
ABORTION A 'FINAL SOLUTION'
Kathy Zawackis (letter, Aug. 13) takes exception to the comparison of abortion and the Nazi Holocaust. Websters' Collegiate Dictionary defines ''holocaust" as a thorough destruction. What could be more thoroughly destructive than the killing of an innocent, unborn child by abortion? I truly doubt that even Hitler could think of a more final solution.
Your reader states that "Hitler's motives were hatred toward inferior races" and that "women who get abortions and abortionists do not regard the fetus as inferior and therefore they are not sadists like the Nazis." What kind of twisted logic is that? If one followed Ms. Zawackis' logic, you would conclude that at least in their twisted minds, the Nazis had a reason for their extermination, while in abortion, it's simply a matter of convenience.
As for freedom, our Constitution says all men are created equal, not born equal. Ms. Zawackis and her fellow women libbers want their rights at the expense of others'.
Finally, she says abortionists are not in it for the money. Dr. Felix Spector, whose first conviction was for performing illegal abortions, said ''I did it for the money" - and so does every other doctor who does it. After they get caught, some say it was a matter of principle, but it's not true, they all do it for the money.
After all is said and done, abortion is just another example of man's inhumanity to man.
Patricia K. Ott
STRIKE BACK AT THE POLLS
Like letter-writer Tomas O'Laoghaire of Collegeville, I too am bitterly opposed to the extradition treaty. But we can strike back and in a big way - at the polls. We can get rid of these traitors, put our own people in power, because we have the largest voting bloc in the country. I want to destroy every politician who is anti-Irish and anti-Catholic.
Andrew W. Caulfield
Maple Shade, N.J.
TO BE A DAD OR NOT TO BE: IS THAT AN ANTI-LIFE QUESTION?
I agree wholeheartedly with David Oneil Byrd's decision not to father children.
I am 37. When 19, I decided not to bring children into the world, a decision I have never regretted. I would not trade for $100 million my peace of mind from knowing I never brought a child into this world.
It works out nice. I am helping my kids by not bringing them into the world. I am helping myself by not having to bear the burden of raising children.
I doubt you will print this letter, but here goes anyway. With publication of David Oneil Byrd's Guest Opinion column Aug. 25, "Five Billion Reasons Not To Father Any Children," I have come to the conclusion that the Daily News is militantly anti-life. The articles and letters you choose to print in your editorial pages are those in which life is either made little of or prejudiced against or deserving of cruel and inhuman treatment or death. Now you have printed this column by Mr. Byrd about preventing life.
There is a saying, "It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness." Has the Daily News made a choice to curse? Your paper should be renamed the "Doleful News."
Margaret A. Bishop
TAX 'REFORM' FAVORS THE RICH
Tax reform is huckstered by Reagan as fair to all, but look at the potential effect, based on a constant taxable income for three different couples, using the proposed "transition rates" for 1987 and those taking effect for 1988.
Couple One, with taxable income of $28,000, paid $4,212 in taxes for 1985. Using the transition rates for 1987, the couple would pay $3,750 for that year, thus saving $462 or 11 percent. For 1988, the 15 percent of their income ($28,000) would yield a tax bite of $4,200, giving them a saving of $12 of 0.3 percent, based on their 1985 payment.
Couple Two, with taxable income of $50,000 for 1985, paid $11,057 in taxes. Using the transition rates for 1987 would result in a tax payment of $10,590, savings of $467 or 4.2 percent. The tax bite for 1988, using the two steps of 15 and 28 percent, would be $10,132.50 giving this couple a saving of $924.50, or 8.4 percent.
Couple Three, the Reagans, with taxable income of $394,492 for 1985 (their gross income exceeded that amount by more than $200,000), paid $122,703 in taxes. According to an Aug. 19 article in the Daily News, the Reagans would pay $121,147 for 1987, a tax cut of $1,556 or 1.3 percent (an Aug. 23 CBS newscast indicated it would actually be 15 percent); for 1988, they would pay $96,668, a tax cut of $26,025, or 21 percent of what they paid in 1985.
When the full effect of the so-called reform comes into being for 1988, Couple One saves $12 a year, Couple Two saves $924.50 a year, the Reagans and the rest of the untitled aristocracy save $26,025 a year and more as their taxable income increases. This evaluation does not take into consideration the untaxed income generated by past tax shelters and those shelters that sophisticated lawyers and accountants can find for them in the proposed law.
What can one do with an additional $12 a year? What more can one do with $924.50 a year when increases in the cost of gas for heating, electric, water and sewer, telephones and property taxes more than offset such modest increase? But a saving of $26,025 a year will more than pay for the increased cost of living.
Where is the fairness in a new tax bill that favors the untitled aristocracy in this manner, and provides a mere pittance for the rest of us?