Let's say someone has a gameboy, someone else asks to play the gameboy and that person says no, the person that was refused the gameboy says that person is mean or selfish, but would that mean the person with the gameboy would have been more rightjust without the gameboy in the first place? Or the person with the gameboy lets one kid play with it but not another, would the person with the gameboy have been nicer if the person never gave the gameboy out at all? Anyway Oprah is like the person who shares their gameboy with one person, it wouldn't have made her more morally superior if she didn't share the gameboy with anyone or didn't have the gameboy at all. It might not be fair that one person gets to play with the gameboy but the other one doesn't but why deny everyone a gameboy just because one person can't have one? I think it was nice for Oprah to spend money on kids with fewer opportunities.

"But the thing, the ONE thing, that ticks me off, is that some Americans were sooo greedy, SOOOO selfish, that they said that Oprah should've given that money to benifit American schools!!! The reason why she didn't it simlpy this: Most American kids DON"T care about ther education. So why would she give all those BILLIONS of dollars to benifit kids that care more about material possesions than their education???"

That would tick me off if I got rich and when I first give away money to charity people start yelling at me that I should have given it to a differnt charity, that would make me want to keep my gameboy to myself.