Britt column

Donna Britt has a typically weird, meandering and mostly pointless column in today's Washington Post that attempts to tie together the issues of relations between African immigrants and Black Americans with Bush-bashing. This sentence really blew my mind:

The president also claimed to have "tripled" aid to Africa over the past four years, when according to Rice, total U.S. assistance to Africa has increased by just 56 percent -- and more than half of that increase is emergency food aid, not poverty-reducing assistance.

Even taking that at face value, what the hell does she mean "just" 56 percent? If she got a raise of 56 percent would she complain about that? Honestly, what does Bush have to do to make some people happy?

:

At least liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is able to give credit where credit is due.

Those who care about Africa tend to think that the appropriate attitude toward President Bush is a medley of fury and contempt.

But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between north and south. And while Mr. Bush has done shamefully little to stop Sudan's other conflict - the genocide in Darfur - that's more than Mr. Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent apology afterward).

So as the G-8 summit meeting convenes this week, focusing on Africa, it's worth acknowledging that Mr. Bush, and conservatives generally, have in many ways been great for the developing world. At their best, they bring a healthy dose of hands-on practicality to their efforts.

The liberal approach to helping the poor is sometimes to sponsor a U.N. conference and give ringing speeches calling for changed laws and more international assistance.

Let's also not forget that it's not at all clear that aid is always helpful.