Reductio ad absurdum, nice try.
Umm... No it wasn't. The claim was that charity was harmful, and a counter example was put that provides immediate and practical relief and long-term benefits. Now perhaps the claim could be modified to *sometimes* *some* charity creates an environment of dependency etc. But of course that's a empirical claim that needs examples that can be tested.
Check out work of Dambisa Moyo. This one is a good starting point: "Why Foreign Aid Is Hurting Africa " (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123758895999200083.html). Good intentions don't guarantee good outcomes, especially when the outcome is not as immediate and tangible as that of eye surgery.
Yes, I am sure most people here are aware of how state-based foreign aid is misused for political ends and to support favoured business, rather than immediate relief or long-term social needs infrastructure. I mean, it is perplexing how a first world country (such as the United States) can provide billions of dollars to political ally (such as Israel) and still call it "foreign aid" with a straight face. http://www.haaretz.com/business/u-s-aid-to-israel-totals-233-7b-over-six-dec... As for Dambisa Moyo's article, I would be wary about taking too much advise on such matters from a "former economist at Goldman Sachs". They have a reputation, you know. If you really want to know why corrupt governments persist in Africa, I would direct you to topics such as "the resource curse" and especially "blood diamonds". -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt