Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole
Ann Coulter

Even the United Nations sponge who called the United States "stingy" immediately retracted the insult, saying he had been misinterpreted and that the U.S. was "most generous." But the New York Times was sticking with "stingy." In an editorial subtly titled "Are We Stingy? Yes," the Times said the U.N. sponge "was right on target." This followed up a patriotic editorial a few days earlier titled "America, the Indifferent."

America's stinginess is a long-standing leitmotif for liberals – which is getting hard to square with their love for America. When it comes to heaping insults on America, U.S. liberals are the nation's leading donors.

In 2003, the Center for Global Development – funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, despite the fact that it could have used that money on future tsunami victims – concluded that the U.S. ranked 20th out of 21 nations in helping poorer nations. This came as a surprise, inasmuch as the U.S. gives the highest absolute amounts of foreign aid to the developing world.

But as the study explained, the center "assesses policy effort rather than impact." As any liberal can tell you, it's not results that count, it's intentions! In other words, the CGD discounted some countries' foreign aid because the CGD decided it was the sort of aid that wouldn't work – even if, in the end, it did work.

The CGD's evaluation of "effort" somehow managed to bump U.S. contributions from the No. 1 spot to second-to-last. Sending the military to liberate millions of people from ruthless dictators, for example, did not count as "aid," whereas sending in peacekeepers afterward did.

The U.S. did not merely write a check to help the oppressed people of Afghanistan and Iraq: The U.S. did most of the fighting and liberating as well as a significant share of the dying. Where's Michael Moore with that up-to-the-minute body count of U.S. soldiers when you need him?

But in the words of the CGD, military aid doesn't count because "one country's security enhancement is another's destabilizing intervention" – you know, the way U.S. soldiers "destabilized" France in 1944. (My guess is, Presbyterian missionaries in the jungle don't get as many points as U.N. seminars on condom use either.)

Consequently, in 2003, Norway got 7.1 points for "peacekeeping." Denmark got 7.4 points. France got 5.2. The country that dispatched the Taliban and Saddam Hussein ñ- and, before that, ensured that the above countries would not be speaking German or Russian – got 1.5 points for "peacekeeping."

But at least we beat Japan! Except in other studies by liberals – who certainly do love their country – that claim Japan beats the U.S. in foreign aid donations.

Among Al Franken's proofs that Bill O'Reilly is a "liar" – in addition to his jaw-dropping revelation that O'Reilly's former TV show won a "Polk" and not a "Periwinkle" Award – Franken attacked O'Reilly for having the audacity to say the U.S. gives more foreign aid than any other country in the world.

Responding to this outrage, Franken writes: "Japan gives more. Not per capita. More." (And Franken is the world's largest donor of mentions of his own USO tours.)

I guess there are as many ways to calculate "aid" as there are to calculate "love of country." According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2003, the U.S. gave $37.8 billion out of a total $108.5 billion in foreign aid from the world's major countries – notable for being more than three times the amount from the next largest donor, the Netherlands, clocking in at $12.2 billion. Americans make up about 5 percent of the world's population and give about 35 percent of the aid.

So it's interesting that a great patriot like Al Franken – who goes on USO tours regularly, in case he hasn't called you at home in the last 10 minutes to remind you – would choose the method of calculating foreign aid most disparaging to his country and call O'Reilly a "liar" for using a different calculus.

At a minimum, in order to discount the largesse of the United States, one must carefully exclude gigantic categories of aid, such as military aid, food aid, trade policies, refugee policies, religious aid, private charities and individual giving.

However "aid" is calculated, it is not that hard to calculate someone's affection for their country based on their propensity to tell slanderous lies about it.

Let's review.

The New York Times calls the U.S. "stingy" and runs letters to the editor redoubling the insult, saying: "The word 'stingy' doesn't even come close to accurately describing the administration's pathetic initial offer of aid. ... I am embarrassed for our country."

Al Franken flies into a rage upon discovering that O'Reilly imagines the U.S. is the most generous nation in the world.

The Washington Post criticizes Bush for not rushing back to Washington in response to the tsunami – amid unfavorable comparisons to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who immediately cut short his vacation and returned to Berlin. (Nothing snaps a German to attention like news of mass death!)

The prestigious Princeton "ethicist" Peter Singer, who endorses sex with animals and killing children with birth defects, says "when it comes to foreign aid, America is the most stingy nation on Earth."

And has some enterprising reporter asked Sen. Patty Murray what she thinks about the U.S.'s efforts on the tsunami? How about compared to famed philanthropist Osama bin Laden?

In December 2002, Murray was extolling Osama bin Laden's good works in the Middle East, informing a classroom of students: "He's been out in these countries for decades building roads, building schools, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. It made their lives better." What does Murray say about bin Laden's charity toward the (mostly Muslim) tsunami victims?

Speaking of world leaders admired by liberals, why isn't Fidel Castro giving the tsunami victims some of that terrific medical care liberals tell us he has been providing the people of Cuba?

Stipulating that liberals love America – which apparently depends on what the meaning of "love" is – do they love America as much as they love bin Laden and Castro?

Ann Coulter and Bill Franken are the same person with different agendas.. If those two ever had kids together the shear spin factor that would be unleashed on the planet would tip the earth off its axis and send it spinning into space...

Even when you cut through the BS the US donates more public and private money to world causes than the top 10 countries combined. I for one think we need to hold the US bashers accountable to that fact.

Who would not agree that we give more than any country ever in the history of civilization ????

Its to bad she wants to make it a Democrate issue and ignore the fact that not all left wing people feel or act the same way Franken does. On the same hand I know and understand that she is simply a blowing poop hole with long hair... He is just like her with short hair and glasses.

I for one am sick of all these people... from both sides. I can't listen to talk radio anymore because of all the angling by both sides..While most people in this country fall somewhere in the middle on the issues as they come up.. its this non-stop B.S from both sides of the media thats really wearing people out.

The best thing about Ann Coulter is her great bod. Her looks can only be improved by a dozen wraps of duct tape around her mouth.

As for US generousity, no nation gives more than the US. Of course, our nation isn't flawless, and we've gathered some major scabs along the way. But as the richest and most powerful nation in the world, the US gives more to those in need than anyone else could.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Ya know what I think... Ann Coulter is just playing a character, and all of her anti-liberal diatribes are merely concocted to:

A) Provide folks like Rory and TheKing an ultra-conservative political opinion they can adopt as their own and express to others through copy / paste on internet bulletin boards. :p

B) Make a TON of money.

If it weren't for the extreme right-wing evangelical neo-conservative ditto heads willing to slurp up every steaming pile of manure she excretes as if it were their last meal on earth, she'd probably be makin' her living writing children's books.

It's rather telling that people with conservative values, beliefs and politics are proud to publically identify themselves as Conservatives---but most people who have liberal values, beliefs and politics never want to be associated with the 'L' word or those outspoken advocates of modern liberalism.

I don't agree with everything that Coulter or Limbaugh says, but I value their opinions and the provocative way they communicate them.

The fact is that Al Fraken, Michael Moore, George Soros, Maureen Dowd, Noam Chomsky and Phil Donahue DO represent the modern Liberal mindset. However, when they voice their ideology they are brushed off (in public) by many on the left as 'not representing' our side....when in fact they do.

As stated above, I don't argree with everything that Coulter and Limbaugh say--but I do feel they do in large part represent the sentiment of many conservatives today.

How about she makes some real interesting points with satire,wit etc.

When ever she gets slammed it's personal and never directed at the point she makes ala 4Salt and Salmo
Duct tape, nice bod etc. I thought lefties where not sexist ? Oh thats right do as we say not as we do.

Even Katie couric dressed down Mike morre this Am. He called the president Gilligan and she asked him why that was needed.

I didn't attack her personally at all king. I actually think she is a gifted writer and is very shrewd, capitalizing on the political climate of the times. I find her articles both amusing and a bit disturbing due to the fact that, like KK pointed out, alot of people take them seriously.

Bottom line... as long as there's a demand for this type of 'Journalism'... there'll be a supply, from BOTH sides.

4Salt can you point out what cannot be taken seriously in her above column?

I do not read her column on a regular basis but when I see something that makes a good and valid point I give it it's due. I do not dismiss it out of hand because it is liberal or conservative or I do not like the tone of the piece.

KK,

Thats dismissive because it does not meet your standards for discourse. In a free market these things tend to sort themselves out. She is a pundit not a hard news source for gods sake.

Why yes... yes I can king. How about the title for starters: Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole.


How would Ann know how OJ loved Nicole? I HIGHLY doubt that she asked him. How therefore would Ann be able to make the comparative statement that liberals love America in a similar fashion.

If I had more time and inclination, I would dissect the entire article for you king. As it stands now, I have neither.

Oh, do they? Because you said they do?

Tell us all what an American liberal thinks, Rory, bein's that you're all tuned in to the liberal mindframe.

Dan S,

If you're identifying yourself as someone who's more in tune with how liberals feel and think, by all means please list four or five public political pundits on the left that you feel represent the sentiment of modern liberalism more than the ones I listed.



I'll get the ball rolling by listing a few pundits on the right that I feel successfully articulate the sentiments of many conservatives today:

Michael Medved

Roy Innis

David Horowitz

Rush Limbaugh

Laura Ingraham

KK,

So it's ok for someone to say what they think only if you agree with it or it passes the Avg. man test? We would be getting our news presented Pamela Anderson and Brad Pitt and edited by People magazine.

4Salt,

I would bet there are 100 or more pages of OJ's explanation of how much he loved Nicole from the two trials. But you know the point was he loved her so much he killed her rather than let her be want she wanted to be. Just like liberals love the US so much they are killing her rather than letting her be what she wants to be.

King.. don't you mean " what you want her to be ?? " Who are you to say what America wants to be ??? You do know that approx half the people in this country disagree with you right ???

Actually, its not that simple. I agree with some of the things you say, and disagree with some of the things you say. I can see the Repubican point of view on some issues, but think they are wrong about others.

So... Are you going to say that I am not an American who loves his country.. Are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter "better" Americans than I am ???

Brun

"You do know that approx half the people in this country disagree with you right ??? "

That is an way over simplfying a complex issue based on the presidential vote. If you break it down issue by issue a vast majority of America agrees with the right on most social issues and about the same on economic issues. Don't confuse the marketing of a presidential campaign with how people truely feel they will never foot because you are forced into a box.

A good example is the issue above. You have the liberal media attacking the president as stingy when the overwhelming majority of the populace agree that we are more than generous.

Aunty,

I apologize. That was the nicest thing I could think of to say about Coulter.

TK,

I could attack the substance of Couter’s article. As 4-Salt and KK point out, there’s no shortage of target material. She is clever or shrewd, but she uses that talent to take material out of context, employ vitriol, name calling, personal attacks, sarcasm, and never makes a reasoned analysis. Personally, I don’t think her material is worth my time.

I shouldn’t have responded the way I did; that was more characteristic of how you and Rory respond to liberal articles. I should have simply said I don’t care for her work and don’t think it’s worth my time to critique it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.