UN Criticizes American Spending on Pets

Almost exactly one year ago, Norwegian-born UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Jan Egeland, said the U.S. is stingy and should raise taxes to give more relief aid. He collected some criticism for his remarks.

Consequently, when he shot his mouth off in an interview last Friday, he didn't use the word "stingy" but the message was the same.

From Myway.com:

After the Dec. 26, 2004, tidal wave swept across the Indian Ocean devastating coastal communities in 12 countries, Egeland urged the world to help those who had lost everything, saying many of the richest countries were "far too stingy" in helping the poorest.

Egeland did not use the word "stingy" again, but he said he still was dissatisfied with the response to helping the world's less fortunate.

Okay, fine. As one of the UN's senior kleptocrats, Egeland is expected to beat the bushes for more cash. However, he didn't stop there. This time around, Egeland criticized American household spending.

"North American pets get more investment per month than we have money for all our humanitarian operations in the world."

Now, I don't think it's fair to link pet ownership with humanitarian aid, but one thing is certain. When North Americans spend money on their pets, there is considerable assurance that the pets will benefit. On the other hand, when money is given to the UN, there is little confidence that the intended recipients will ever see a nickle's-worth of benefit. The only certainty is that from now until the Sun turns into a red giant, the UN will have its hand out while complaining that wealthy nations are cheapskates.