And in the USA they didn't know what 'the rest of the world' meant.

Never mind the fact that the US sends millions of dollars every year to different parts of the world in order to feed and educate third world countries so they can become more self sufficient and stop starving to death.

Perhaps the word Canada should have replaced the word USA. And I certainly don't remember ANY other country or continent rushing to the aid of the US in times of crisis, especially those listed in that stupid "joke."

Yeah it was a joke, I get it, but it's a real crappy one considering the US has sent countless provisions and billions of dollars in monetary donations to every single placed mentioned in that so-called joke.

Comparing USA aid to that of European countries is not in itself a simple task. The American people are actually no less generous than those of other developed countries. By comparing aid as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) you measure the amount of aid that is given by individuals. On this scale, Americans look angelic, giving twice as much as Britons or Canadians.

Also, when comparing it as a percentage, one misses completely the total amount of foreign aid given.

The talks hit a snag over an obscure "safeguard" for protecting agricultural producers in the developing world from a sudden surge in imports or drop in commodity prices.

While farm import safeguards currently exist in rich and poor countries, they are rarely used and reflect only a minute portion of the billions of dollars in manufacturing, farm and services gains the WTO's Doha trade round was supposed to create.

"In the face of global food price crisis, it is ironic that the debate came down to how much and how fast could nations raise their barriers to imports of food," said U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, who resisted attempts by China and India to ensure a loophole for developing countries allowing them to increase farm tariffs as part of an agreement.

Schwab called the measure "blatant protectionism."

and further down in the article: U.S. officials were bitter after agreeing under the deal to limit U.S. farm subsidies deemed to unfairly distort international trade to under $14.5 billion. Although it is still above actual payments to American farmers, it was a far lower level than Washington had ever accepted and seemed to gain the support of all 153 WTO members.

Some took the U.S. movement as an important step, noting that it came after a contentious five-year, $291 billion farm bill that maintained and even extended a number of U.S. subsidy programs. But others noted that offers were made without any congressional weight, citing President Bush's lack of a "fast track" authority to submit a trade deal to Congress for a yes-or-no vote.

In the U.S., Democrats have refused to renew President George W. Bush's fast-track trade negotiating authority, leaving the nation on the sidelines for bilateral deals. Congress won't approve pending deals with Colombia, South Korea and Panama.