Attention: this may be the only time I cite The Washington Times.
Concerning this "stingy" thing:
I have yet to see the full text of Mr. Egeland's first remarks anywhere, thought certain media outlets have focused on the use of the word "stingy" as if it were used to modify the United States exclusively, or even specifically.
Bill Sammon of The Washington Times has given a rather large chunk of actual statement. Please read it, and note that Mr. Egeland uses the word "we" as the pronoun to which the adjective "stingy" is attached. The quote:
"It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really," the Norwegian-born U.N. official told reporters. "Christmastime should remind many Western countries at least, [of] how rich we have become."
"There are several donors who are less generous than before in a growing world economy," he said, adding that politicians in the United States and Europe "believe that they are really burdening the taxpayers too much, and the taxpayers want to give less. It's not true. They want to give more."
Washington Times, 28 Dec 2004.
The article doesn't quote the man until half-way down the column, and asserts in the opening paragraph (not to mention the title, "U.N. official slams U.S. as 'stingy' over aid") that Egeland said the US was stingy. As you can see by the quote, he didn't.
We might also note that donations went up after that. But I've already discussed that with Larry about a week ago.
If you think the UN is insufficiently humble, I understand. I also understand that many conservatives have hated the UN for decades, and that nothing that organization could ever do will redeem it.