No, it doesn't. Bad people don't necessarily reap what they sow and neither do bad nations. That is, acting badly can, on balance, be in one's self-interest.
> I'd say 3000 dead at home, plus USAPA, are new reasons for that
opposition,
Only if we buy your theory of karma (I'd be interested to hear you ground it metaphysically). The US could well incur domestic casualties as a consequence of good foreign policy that some groups or nations might take exception to. Put it this way: Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the Oklahoma federal building did not give us new reasons to oppose tax policy.
> Sure it does. It's not real precise about when you reap the whirlwind. But
> it does predict that sooner or later you will.
I predict that you'll incur negative consequences for praise-worthy acts. That doesn't mean a) you ought to stop doing anything worthy of praise or b) neglecting to do anything worthy of praise is prudentially a good bet. And it doesn't mean my "prediction" has a whole hell of a lot of predictive power even though sometimes it'll turn out to be prophetic.
> Hmph. Given what in general I now do for a living, let's hope not. Right
now
> I'm doing something very good that all would approve of, helping to
instruct
> a municipal police force how to not violate the Constitution (they asked).
> But generally what I do now is to defend the rich and powerful (at best)
> against each other.
So do you think your serving the forces of evil? Eric Lormand, a leftist philosophy prof, recently questioned the consistency of my desire to become a corporate law whore with my professed inclinations to alleviate human suffering.
-- Luke
>
> jks
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com