I'm running out of time today, so I'll just try to hit this point by point:

You wrote: [At no point did I ever suggest that you had ever "proposed the concept of no federal taxation."]. Your quote: So ... you did not want the government to take your money, but you did want a say in determining how the money that was collected would be spent. The "not wanting gov. to take my money" is where I got that interpretaion. If it is errant, I do so humbly apologize.

You wrote: [You raised the point of him being a hypocrite because he sheltered a portion of his own money while arguing that taxed funds ought to be spent in a certain fashion. And as I said before, you do the exact same thing. You believe in a certain tax structure and you want a say in how taxes are spent. There is absolutely no difference here.] Again--I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You don't see me stumping Irish politics for them to change their tax structure. It's none of my business. Similarly, it's none of Saint Bono's business how the American tax structure is designed or executed. If one is for minimal taxation--fine. If one is for pet projects--fine. But one cannot impose a pet project on another (in another country, no less) while trying to conserve minimal taxation for himself. If you don't see muck of this, then we'll agree to disagree.

You wrote: [It is quite possible to increase the spending in a certain given arena without increasing one's income. It's called reallocation of funding.] Yeah. I know that. But how likely is it to increase category A by 467%, thereby reducing categories B-Z to make up the difference in the American political climate. Last I checked, there's still funding for a bridge to nowhere in Ketchikan. Budget reallocation on this scale is highly unlikely to occur. (They can't even balance the dang thing--let alone do something that requires a fundamental shift in values such as this.)

You wrote: [“First, what do you mean by suggesting that Bono is using "forced coercion?"] Easy. Bono didn't ask me to donate to his pet project. He tried to convince my government to fund his pet project. And by American funding of his pet project, it would likely result in a significant destabilization of tax income/expenditure homeostatis. (If there is one.) He could have tried to raise the money by donation; instead, he attempted to reach into my pocket (via the IRS) in such a fashion that (if passed by my crappy government) I could not say no.

And for the record, I knew that Bush would never agree to such a goofy plan. The principle is what annoys me.

You wrote: [So I return to the original thrust of the argument. How can you call a man a hypocrite when you act in the same manner as he does?] I don't act like he does. I don't try to impose my pet projects on others, using tactics like white guilt, celebrity status (if I had any), and other resources onto others. If I see a noteworthy charity, then I anonymously support it. If I feel that others may want to also donate, I discretely provide them with the information as to how they can as well and let nature take its course. (Such as in this case.)

You wrote: [that is exactly what the ONE Campaign (of which he is one of the major authors) is attempting to do. But rather than asking people to pony up their money, they are asking them to become involved politically by exercising their power to vote for increased spending on Africa.] And that's fine. Enter into the arena of ideas all you want.

Just don't try to impose a higher rate of taxation onto me, while you do all you can to lower the taxation rate on yourself. Almost like the bisexual debate--you can't have it both ways. You either are ____ or you are not _____. You either are for big government / high taxes, or you are not for big government / high taxes. Don't try to impose big government on me (with all the taxation duties therein) while trying to shirk the taxation duties in which you claim to value.