Haha. Should be awesome :)

Feeeiiifffth

hey Lat - what happened to blocking these douchebags from continuing to make these stupid comments? i spend more time trying to get past these idiots' messages than actually reading the substantive stuff.

I spend more time reading the comments complaining about the "First" comments than I do actually writing "First" comments.

Wow. Good response by GT though.

"My deep apologies to all who received your email...."

OUCH.

"alloiwed" "cannon fudder" "organisation"

I know he's German, but geez, if you are going to spam the whole firm then at least hit F7 first.

And, you think this German is pissed at having to work at a firm named Greenburg, and answering to a guy named Rosenbaum?

Ha ha

That was a very well-drafted response, and a stunning rebuke of Wüstiner. We have this thing in the legal profession called judgment. He had none.

2:33 sounds lame. Wuestiner sounds like a great guy. Seriously.

"Your cynism [sic] and political views however will never be taken into account in your compensation, that is determined by your performance."

The comma after 'compensation' should be a semi-colon or a period.

Hanspeter would be perfect as a blogger for the Daily Kos. He just needs to adopt a slightly more extreme point of view and ditch his mildly coherent writing style.

Once we're talking about the awesome goings-on at GT, consider this: http://deadspin.com/sports/nfl/your-complete-guide-to-all-nfl-player-arrests-259343.php

2:31

He's Swiss, not German.

Now who's the moron?

I agree, the German attorney was out of line in making the original request into a political debate.

But the firm president using the phrase "creating negative energy"?

Please leave that phrase with ditzy teenage girls and don't bring it to a professional setting. Thank you.

Thanks for your help beating the Nazis, Hanspeter. And, since you appear to work with Swiss banks, maybe you can help the descendants of Holocaust victims in getting their money back. Much appreciated.

Maybe he is just traurig about not getting a holiday with all of his US colleagues. Traurig. I crack me up.

Anyway, I think what Richard is really trying to say is that it won't affect Han(d)speter's bonus since only people still employed at the firm get a bonus...

All'em are Nazis

Well, he's still pissed at having to work for teh Joos. And he still can't spell.

What is the world coming to??? An angry left-wing tirade without the buzzwords "neocon" and "halliburton"???

The response noticeably doesn't address the key point: that providing assistance to soldiers of an occupying army is not an apolitical issue for an international law firm.

If anything, this little tempest in a teapot illustrates the difference in perception between Americans and Europeans. An American, even a left-leaning one, draws a distinction between supporting the troops (i.e., the pawns in the game doing the bidding of the Commander in Chief) and supporting or challenging the validty of the war, hence the apolitical view of the calling card drive, while the Euros cannot separate the individual soldiers from the overall ideology of the war. Maybe one of you sociology majors can explain what it all means.

while I don't agree with the swiss partner's choice of venue, 258 makes a valid point. I am also curious as to how supplying calling cards to soldiers "helping soldiers" I mean, do they have to call collect for medical assistance? Isn't he right, that the American govt should be able to foot the bill for soldiers' calls? Or maybe international phone companies who own the lines should grant it for free (if controlled by an ally)? I'm just sayin.

2:58 - What occupying army? Last I checked, the MNF in Iraq is authorized by the United Nations Security Council (Resolution 1723), as requested by the Prime Minister of Iraq in his November 11, 2006 letter to the United Nations.

YAY FOR HANSPETER!

Puh-lease! Wow you got a document dated by the Prime Minister that was propped up by the army who invaded and occupied that very county. I wonder why he wrote such a thing? Yes, they are no longer occupying, but do you need to be unauthorized in order to be considered occupying? Are the troops on the ground now supposed to be UN Chartered troops? If so, why the hell is it 95% US troops? idiot.

"The response noticeably doesn't address the key point: that providing assistance to soldiers of an occupying army is not an apolitical issue for an international law firm."

Excellent point.

"Why isn't some of the surplus used for innocent iraqi victims?"

Another good point.

While the Swiss partner showed poor judgment by sending his poorly edited email to the entire firm, his point is valid: an international and presumably nonpartisan law firm should not be contributing to the welfare of a controversial occupying army, whose continual presence in Iraq is now overwhelmingly unpopular even within the US.

The managing partner's email shows very poor judgment. Why escalate something that would otherwise quickly blow over? If he truly cared about controlling this kind of email, perhaps he should have someone screen those annoying ALLATTY and ALLSTAFF emails.

Well said 3:17, Hanspeter's e-mail was heroically brave.

Awesome, Mr. Rosenbaum is from StonyBrook!
http://www.gtlaw.com/people/biography.aspx?id=1204&detail=1

Best laugh I have had today. The post title may be the best part.

Not even Dennis Kucinich would take issue with making it easier for US troops stationed abroad to call home.

3:13 / 3:15 / 3:16 / 3:17 / 3:18:

You beg the question, why do you need to repeatedly post to make the same point? Is your underlying argument really that weak that you need to make yourself seem more popular than you really are?

I think that we should all appreciate the heroic efforts of many Greenberg employees and attorneys who have gone to such great lengths to entertain us this summer. Keep up the good work!

"As a side remark I did not make a contribution for political considerations although I think each american soldier should have free calls to his family, since I do support this war and the bush politic."

Does that sentence make sense?

3:21, do you really think they're all the same person?

3:23, English clearly isn't his first language.

So he supports the war, but not the troops!?

I think he forgot to add a "not" in there.

Why is GT giving money away if they can't afford an email system with spell-check?

Why the downers on the troops? They make like $15,000/year. Giving them a few extra bucks (whether it be as phone cards or goodies) isn't such a bad thing.

For those who feel it should not be done by a firm, have you ever met a soldier?

As someone with friends fighting in Iraq, I am confident in saying that our troops are there to try and help the Iraqis. Whether you believe it or not, most of the Iraqi casualties are caused by other Iraqis and not Americans.

I don't care if you agree with the war or not, the fact is that there are thousands of Americans there who are making sure we can sit in Aeon chairs and drink Starbucks every day. For all those complaining that $160,000/year isn't enough, try being shot at for a tenth of that salary. To be more accurate, imagine riding around in your Lexus until-- BLAMMO--you're blown into pieces by a road-side bomb. It would be over before it began and they'd be collecting you with tweezers and cotton balls.

If you care so much about ending the war, then lobby your congressional representative and senators. I am a life-long democrat, and I don't see the House or Senate doing a darn thing about pulling us out of Iraq. Maybe once they get all the details, our presence there is important for national security?

In any event, if you're against the war, then take it out on the people who put the troops there and not on the troops themselves.

I can't speak for the others, but I'm far too lazy to repeat myself merely for the illusion of blog popularity.

hey lat-
do you have the original email/memo requesting donations? did it come from the firm cmte or just from a random employee?

The truth: Most biglaw pro bono work is political, with a decidedly left-leaning bent. I know many conservatives at biglaw firms who feel this way (in fact, all 25 of them do).

3:32,

As it happens, I know quite a few people in the military who are opposed to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. I would support them as people, but I would not support them as American soldiers.

No one here is arguing that being a part of an occupying army makes a soldier a bad person. You've failed to appreciate an important distinction between the person and the job position. If you argue that buying phone cards for American soldiers is apolitical, then you can also argue that buying shoes for North Korean soldiers or candy for Saddam's army is apolitical. That's a slippery path to venture.

Any sensible law firm should stay away and stick to things like helping inner city youths and 3rd world immunization.

It's virtually impossible to find a charity that won't offend some political sensibility:
e.g., Boy Scouts don't allow homosexuals = political
United Way won't fund Boy Scouts= political
March of Dimes supports animal research= political
Etc.
If GT's pro bono work is anything like my firm's, it also has political consequences, e.g. death penalty appeals. My point is that a similar email could have been sent out about virtually any good deed the firm tries to undertake.

My firm had planned a similar idiotic ra ra ra patriotic support the murderers planned, but thankfully cooler heads in the European offices dissuaded the red staters.

3:17 -- I haven't heard such a sorry use of the "moral equivalence" argument since the Cold War ended. Fortunately, except for a few at the fringes, the overwhelming majority of Americans can distinguish between US troops and those of North Korea and Saddam's Iraq.

3:17,

You're right, I don't appreciate how buying shoes for North Korean soldiers is in any way analogous to purchasing a phone card for an AMERICAN soldier.

I firmly believe that the day we stop supporting American soldiers, this whole melting pot experiment begins to swirl down the toilet.

Supporting American soldiers is important because we are Americans. Yes, it's that simple. If I was unfortunate enough to be a North Korean, I would then probably consider sending something to North Korean troops--if they were half way around the world trying to stay alive to protect me.

Soldiers took an oath to defend this country; I respect that, and I respect them. If the wars they are fighting are morally bankrupt or faulty, then it is the leadership that is to blame. Soldiers take orders. Supporting a soldier as a person and not as a soldier makes no sense to me--they took an oath to be a soldier--hence, it becomes a part of each individual.

If you're going to start politicizing the American Armed Forces, then why don't we politicize the "inner city youths and 3rd world immunization." Surely there are some jerk-offs out there who are against supporting those in poverty or sharing America's ability to prevent disease.

The bottom line is that I know for a fact that very few people that read this blog have any interest in actually defending themselves. If push came to shove (countries like to push and shove no matter how isolationist one would like to be, see WWI, WWII), then I'm willing to be most of us would feel a lot better knowing that we didn't have to grab a helmet and rifle and march down 5th Avenue to meet the enemy.

We support our soldiers because they do an extremely dangerous and important job in protecting us from foreign dangers. In my opinion, not appreciating the efforts of our soldiers is headed down the road toward spitting on America and hoping it didn't exist.

3:17, I know that is not what you intended to say, nor necessarily how you feel. Nevertheless, it is my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

The American soldier volunteers to fight any war his President and his country elects to fight. He does not get a say in the process; he does not get to choose when he'll respond to his country's call. Blaming the soldier is irrational. If you oppose the war, fault the President, his advisers, and the American people. Blaming soldiers who are fighting and dying for this war is blaming a victim of this war.

Let me put it this way. If we were fighting Hitler, you'd all be tripping over yourself to fawn over our soldiers. But America screws up and invades the wrong country and suddenly the GI is a war criminal, a common murderer. But what would you call Dresden or Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

I would understand if a German attorney hates American troops--after all, we stomped them something good in World War II. But Europeans who aren't speaking the Fuhrer's German solely by the grace of the American military stating their contempt for American soldiers are just stupid.

Americans hating American soldiers and not the process are just traitors.

Just think of the class distinction issues. At my firm, several of the support staff have sons and dughters serving in Iraq. I think this is probably true at a lot of firms. I doubt many of the attorneys have children or anyone else close to them serving. Even if that's untrue, I bet that's the perception of a lot of the support staff. Just saying, this whole affair could really cause a lot of discord and would have to be handled very carefully.
What if it was support staff who proposed the idea? Management would look like typical elite liberals if they said, "We can't do this; it's too political. Now I'm off to drop my kid at Harvard while yours is . . . ." Tough situation for management to be in.
This guy has some valid complaints, but he should have made his complaint only to firm management and the lawyers in charge of the charity event. If I were management I'd be super pissed at this kraut for sending the message so widely.

Before someone calls me a "red-stater" or dare-I-say-it "Republican," I would like to note that I was born and grew up in Oakland, CA.

Furthermore, I am absolutely shocked by the number of posters who seem to think so negatively about our armed forces.

Most places in the world do not afford the daily safety or political freedoms that we take for granted every day. A friend of mine in Liberia risks rape and plunder every time she ventures out of her house to write me an email.

My Iraqi cousins recall horrible oppression and an omnipresent fear while living in Iraq. Thank goodness they got out.

Given one day of "real" third world living, I postulate that the posters who are down on supporting the troops would be singing a different tune.

Also, for the record, a lot of people from the "red states" have died trying to protect people from the "blue states," and vice versa.

3:59 - your comment has got to be one of the most ignorant, backwards, ill informed things I have ever heard (read). Please leave my country.

3:32/4:11-

Your arguments all talk about the freedoms Americans take for granted, but the e-mail was from a foreign partner. Would you like to be solicited at work to support French troops? Should workers at American Honda plants be solicited to send care packages to the Japanese army? Etc.

Only a crazy, nut liberal could oppose donating calling-cards to the troops on the grounds that it "supports the war effort." If there ever was clearer proof that liberals hate those who serve in our armed forces, it is this email and the discussion it caused.

3:59 - "Murderers?" I swear that your comment has got to be one of the most ignorant, backwards, ill informed things I have ever heard (read). Be glad you have the freedom to say such garbage. Some of these "murderers" were friends of mine that didn't make it back home but they were over there, dying for idiots like you.

To former soldier:

3:59 is probably a French or German prick.

Saying that a law firm should not get involved with a politcally-charged charity is NOT the same thing as not supporting our troops. Besides one dickbag (who probably was just trying to get a rise out of people), I haven't seen anything negative about the troops at all.

Personally, I hate the war but think sending care packages, phone cards, and stuff like that to the troops is a great thing that more people need to do. It's just not something that a non-partisan, non-political law firm should do.

How is this "partisan"? I don't think any member of Congress, or any of the numerous Presidential candidates from either party would oppose this effort and rather, all would say it's a good thing. Only someone truly at the fringe views this as "partisan."

Europeans: Your war is illegal, some of your soldiers are committing crimes against humanity, your leaders are complicit, and your government circulates memos that offer legal support for torture. That's beyond fucked up.

Americans: ZOMG! WE SAVED YOUR *ASSES* IN WWII. HOW CAN YOU DISS US? WHY CAN'T WE BE FRIENDS?!?!?! UR JUST A BUNCH OF NAZIS! (Except, you aren't, because, you know, we SAVED you from the Nazis!) INGRATES!

Seriously, people? He lives in Zürich. That is not in Germany. And, the righteousness of America in WWII has absolutely nothing to do with the present conflict in Iraq. So, for the love of God, stop talking about Nazis, WWII, and Germans.

4:44. If your view of partisan is limited to Democrats and Republicans, then you are clearly missing the point. GT is trying to be an global law firm. It is probably as annoying and parochial to GT's non-American partners to claim that "supporting the troops" is non-political. It is political. It happens to be a "safe" politically correct view in the US (support the troops not the war) but it is a political statement nonetheless. I think the GT managing partner that wrote that memo is going to have a revolt by his non-US partners. He should have realized that not everyone subscribes to the view that the US troops should be supported. As an American, I believe they should be supported, but not everyone at GT is American.

The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!

GT people need to learn to spell

@4:28 (the first) - Sean Hannity, I had no idea you read ATL. But I love the name calling and the questioning of someone's patriotism. It adds so much to the discussion.

So I guess we can add the Swiss to the list of people who hate us for our freedoms, right?

I can't decide whether the level of hypocrisy or the level of ignorance is greater when it comes to Hanspeter and those who agree with him. The American soldier is called upon to serve, so he serves. He doesn't make political decisions, which is in fact the responsibility of our political leaders and the people who vote for them. So, when a soldier is called upon to protect young black students trying to gain entry to an all-white segregated university in Arkansas, he does it. Did Hanspeter condemn the American soldier for that also? I'm guessing not, because the political choice of our leaders suited his tastes just fine in that instance. So it's ok to be a soldier if you agree with his orders, but soldiers are scum if you disagree. That's interesting.

How about this shocking proposal: we treat soldiers for what they are, namely, human beings. They choose to serve, and that choice is not an immoral one. It's honorable, regardless of your feelings about the decisions of our elected officials.

They need to take this liberal douche bag mamby pamby and throw him/her under a bus. Seriously, if this person were my fellow firm mate I would walk in their office and beat them senseless.

Nobody who speaks German can be an evil man!

Hanspeter’s email shows a lack of proper corporate etiquette. We are all a bunch of corporate schmucks. Not only is GT “corporate,” it actually is a corporation. You don’t send out emails like this when you work for a corporation. (I hate my life.)

4:57 - NO silly, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The Germans had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Our government, though used the pretext of the bombing of Pearl Harbor to promote the idea that the world had somehow changed, and thus led us into a bloody war with Germany. Though Germany was led by a genocidal dictator, he had never attacked us before (only our allies).

Kind of similar to what happened in 2003 ... the government used the pretext of the September 11, 2001 attacks to lead us into a war against a genocidal dictator who had nothing to do with the aforementioned attacks.

5:20 - they hate our freedoms AND poke holes in our cheese

That kind of thing would never happen at Cleary.

4:57 - log out of Summation, go home and watch Animal House, STAT.

Sheriff Rupert: "...that's not germane to the situation."

Sheriff Buford T. Justice: "The Germans got nothin to do with it !!!"

4:52 wrote: "It is political. It happens to be a "safe" politically correct view in the US (support the troops not the war) but it is a political statement nonetheless."

No it's not. If there is a difference in attitudes toward soldiers in Europe versus the US, that difference is attributed to differing degrees of evolution in society's thought process. Racism was once accepted in our society. Now it is not. That's social evolution, and that's what is going on here with Europe lagging behind.

Americans believe in separating the morality of a war and the morality of the soldiers fighting in that war because that is the logically correct and morally right thing to do. If Europeans disagree, they are wrong. This is no different than saying that if someone disagrees that racism is immoral, they too are wrong. We Americans have learned these lessons through many painful episodes in our history, most notably Vietnam. Soldiers deserve no condemnation for fighting in wars supported by our duly elected political leaders.

It's amazing to me that people can't understand the difference between Americans supporting our own troops and an international law firm asking people overseas to support our troops.

5:45 - Is it really that amazing? They can't even comprehend basic geography.

Depressing, maybe. Amazing? Not so much.

It appears you douchebags are forgetting that GT, while an "international firm", is in fact an AMERICAN firm with AMERICAN headquarters and mostly American office locations. I can assure you that when Americans choose to be employed by Japanese or French companies, they can expect to have a degree of tolerance for Japanese or French cultural morés without putting up a hissy fit. Being appreciative of the service of the men and women in our armed services, who include our brothers, sisters, parents, children, friends, and neighbors, is simply a thing that AMERICANS do. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you stop accepting paychecks that are funded by the US economy by working for a purely Swiss law firm.

I'm amazed that some of the people here presumably bills at $200+/hr. These Americans do not seem to comprehend how political being occupied by a foreign military force happens to be.

5:45, that's exactly right. Most people here are missing the point. It's one thing to support your own troops, even if you disagree with the substance of their mission. If you are an American, you are obligated to support the troops even while you disagree with (and try to stop) their mission.

It's a totally different thing to be asked to support another country's troops.

I don't know, maybe they all agree that they are working for an American law firm and should understand the trade-off, but I can totally see the European point of view here.

Amen brother. And support the troops.

3:17 - It's amazing how simplistic you are being. You are ignoring to whole point of the program, which is to show support for the individual soldiers serving their country abroad. The program is sponsored by a law firm that is headquartered and generates a majority of business in the United States, and thus wants to show support for the armed forces of the United States.

The soldiers did not choose to occupy Iraq. They are serving as part of a multi-national force, that while primarily American, still exists in Iraq at the request of the people of Iraq. While the entry of that force was not authorized by the former leadership of Iraq, which, by the way, was not representative of the Iraqi people, their current presence is. Thus, they are not "occupiers" as you state, but exist as a supplement to the Iraqi security forces. That's right, MNF forces fight side to side with Iraqi forces.

Further, and this goes out to others as well who propose the idea that a foreigner shouldn't be called on to support American troops ... I simply ask whether you consider the enemies of Iraq and the United States to not only be enemies of our respective peoples, but also enemies of civilization in general. This is particularly true of Al Qaeda in Iraq, but to a lesser extent also true of some of the more barborous Iranian-backed Shia militias.

5:28's comment is the most relevant comment (frankly, one of the only relevant comments on this thread). Regardless of the merits of Wustiner’s argument (which, in my opinion, are lacking), emailing the entire firm – in a highly condescending tone – is extraordinarily unprofessional.

On a separate note, I find it interesting that Wustiner – a man from a country with mandatory military service – seems to take issue with the firm soliciting voluntary contributions to benefit the quality of life of overseas servicemen/servicewomen.

GT should fire this swiss asshole. He should work for a Swiss firm if he hates America so much. People like him make me seeth.

The response isn't terribly nice.

Please identify what the Swiss have contributed to the world.

Secret banking, Lake Lucerne, the Sacra Torte—in that order.

Roger Federer and Martina Hingis

There are a few basic common sense positions that people who want to take part in our global economy need to agree on, whether they are left-wing, right-wing or anything in between. That terrorism exists, that there are states that favor terrorism (e.g., North Korea and Iran), and that the United States is one of the countries fighting against terrorism, are some of these basic positions. Reasonable people can disagree over whether the means that the Bush administration have been taking to fight terrorism were effective or misguided, but reasonable people cannot disagree that the United States (unlike Iran and North Korea) is on balance a force for good in the world. Anyone who disagrees with this has no business working for a U.S.-based organization, and a U.S.-based organization certainly has no business giving employment to someone who openly promotes these anti-American views.

Edouard Stern, best banker sex-murder scandal ever.

Wow! I didn't know ATL was so popular with French and Canadian pussies. All you idiots that are against the soldiers are anti-American and I hope your kids die horribly in the next terrorist attack. maybe a democrap, anti-American pussy says something to me tomorrow...I think I will break his weak ass little jaw. Instead of thinking how great you are, why not do something constructive…like shoot yourself? I dare any of you people to go to one of these countries, you would run back home to momma so quick the shit in your pants would still be wet. The Military should be mandatory, that way maybe you could have an honest opinion instead of “guessing” what it’s like to be in a hostile environment. Maybe then, you could appreciate how good you have it here.

What a bunch of anonymous cowards!

Shorter Fed Soc:

"Anyone who disagrees with me is not a reasonable person, because only people who agree with me are reasonable!"

I'm not sure which is lamer, Fed Soc's circular argument or Fellow Soldier's name-calling and threats. Wow, conservatives sure are smart.

By the way, Fellow Soldier, why are you calling people "anonymous cowards" when you haven't provided your own name?

In what sense do you refer to "French and Canadian pussies"?

In a good way or a bad way?

7:57: Are you completely out of your mind or did you just not read my comment? Reasonable people can disagree over all kinds of foreign policy, moral or economic issues, even issues that I feel very strongly about. Reasonable people can even disagree on whether the Iraq War was successful and/or desirable. But reasonable people cannot claim that terrorism does not exist, or that America is the equivalent of a terrorist state, or that American troops are not worthy of respect.

This lousy grammar makes me want to puke.

Let me clear things up for everyone here.

(1) The original email was unprofessional. Riddled with grammatical errors and poor diction choices, it made GT look like a place that hires mediocre clowns. Jawohl!

(2) But that's not to say that W shouldn't have voiced his opinion; he just should have done it more deftly.

(3) The partner's response was heavy handed, but more importantly, as others have pointed out, self-undermining. If he really wanted the thing to blow over, he never should have responded to W.

(4) The presence of US solidies in Iraq is intensely political, a fact that only some solipsistic shit with a degree in polisci from Brown or some other shittastic school could miss. That's why you can expect many people - Americans and Europeans alike - to raise eyebrows at any program that could be interpreted to condone what's going on in Iraq.

(5) Despite (4), there is a sense in which you can support solidiers without supporting the political and economic aims of those who pull their strings.

And given the sacrifices that soldiers make (for ALL OF US), it would be nice if more people remembered this when they FRAME their objections to programs like the one at issue.

Thus, in my view (not necessarily the right view, mind you), W's complaint is really petty. The benefit given to American soldiers is small, and what they've been asked to sacrifice is so much more than what most of us can imagine.

(6) 7:13, that chap that only wants American firms to employ people who have reasonable views about the existence of terrorism and the threat it poses to civilized peoples everywhere, is surely an idealist living on sugary-coated cloud in the sky.

If we were only to exchange in commerce with those who recognize terrorism and are willing to take steps to reduce it, well, there goes our ties with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and . . . drumroll please . . . Pakistan!

Yeah, GT, please stop employing liberal schmucks from Europe . . . but it's ok to get in bed with the Muslim oil-lords that pay those bastards at al Qaeda to blow us to smithereens!

(7) Terrorism does exist. (Glad we finally came to a resolution on this one.)

I used to think this blog was read by intelligent and informed people.

5:30: Yes, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. But the Germans declared war on the US the following day. To this day, no one is quite sure why Hitler did that, but it sure as hell made things a lot easier for FDR.

Sacher torte is Viennese (from the Hotel Sacher), where they also speak Deutsche without being German. To quote the ever quotable famed Vienna denizen Harry Lyme, Switzerland's greatest contribution to western civilisation was the cuckoo clock.

9:00 p.m., doesn't Pat Buchanan argue that the U.S. entering into World War II was highly misguided? If so, it seems this would conflict with your point that Germany declared war on the U.S. because obviously if Germany declared war on the U.S. we had to go to war, or else what am I missing?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm

Pat Buchanan isn't always right.

Seriously, though. With Lend/Lease, the US pretty much forced the Axis to declare war when the opportunity arose.

To the various liberals who believe that the head of the firm should not have responded, you are wrong. Had the head not responded (and stated clearly his hope that no one would subsequently use the firmwide distribution list for this purpose) it is obvious that a more reasonable, moderate lawyer at the firm would have replied to the original email with a more thoughtful, reasoned argument on why supporting the troops is different from supporting the war (most likely, a leftist lawyer who hates Bush would have said that he hates Bush but that we should still support the war). Who knows who else would have written thereafter. The firm's head's best option was to deal with this promptly, and he did so quite effectively.

For all those berating the Swiss partner's grammar, let's see you draft a similar e-mail in Swiss German and see how well you do on it.

And 7:06 the "Sacher Torte" is a Viennese pastry and has nothing to do with Switzerland. Please attempt to sound more informed next time.

While the firm's president makes a somewhat valid point, as an international firm (and not an "American" firm) GT partners should have the better sense to keep the sensibilities of other employees in mind before encouraging a firmwide charity drive that is perceived to endorse anything controversial. The desire to help human beings can manifest itself in raising money for Darfur or contributing to MSF as opposed to something for an arguably less critical purpose such as phone cards!

Greenberg also showed up at a west coast OCIP last week and waited until mid interviews to let people know they weren't actually hiring in their Irvine office.

9:39 - I appreciate your point, but the Swiss fellow's admitted to the NY bar. He really should demonstrate a better grasp of English.

The moonbats have completely taken over the comments today. I have never received a professional (and perhaps not even outside of the work context) email from someone with such horrendously poor writing skills as the Greenberg leftist's. And I am talking about emails sent to me only, not even group emails or firmwide emails, for which we would obviously have higher expectations. If the leftist cannot write in English, he shouldn't be sending out a controversial firmwide email in English!!

While I agree with the Swiss gentleman's right to bring up his point - the way he did so was (at best) lacking.

Company wide emails rarely do any good when they are to complain.

What some also fail to mention is that often times those phone cards also go to service members NOT serving in a forward area. Being able to call home is a great morale booster.

Living on an e2 or e3 pay is difficult - SA's complaining about 2400 a week should realize that 2400 is over 2 MONTHS pay for a service member.

While the gentleman may be based in Zurich - he works for a firm that has it's very existence protectd by the umbrella of freedom afforded by our men and women in uniform. Tact and decorum would require some *restraint* with your objection. A single email to the department in charge of the program would have been enough. No need to make people who actually do have friends down range feel like crap because you do.

9:55 perhaps the same (if not higher) standard should apply to the president's e-mail as well?

9:39 -- Yes, the same does apply. However, I tend to agree with an earlier poster that the president was trying to send his message out as quickly as possible to shut everyone else down.

Don't get me wrong: I don't hold the Swiss lawyer to the same fluency standards, but it's scary that one can be admitted to practice in NY with language skills like those.

9:00 -- You're right, Hitler most certainly did declare war on the US on December 11, 1941, four days after Pearl Harbor. Looking back, Hitler may have been wise to wait.

While Hitler absolutely would not have avoided war with the US (we were preparing to put troops into Europe as early as 1943, and FDR's post-Pearl Harbor speech mentioned Europe repeatedly .. much like Bush's SOTU after 9/11 mentioned Iraq), he might have succeeded in turning public opinion against such an invasion.

Assume, for example, that Hitler did not declare war against the US. The isolationists in America could very well have mounted an anti-war movement against the war in Europe. There would have been hearings as to whether the effort in Europe was detracting from our effort in Asia against Japan, which after all was the country that actually attacked us.

Hitler may very well have succeeded in pushing Americans to demand timetables to remove troops from Europe in late 1944 and early 1945, and "redeploy" those troops to Asia.

10:05 - Showing personal support for the troops fighting al Qaeda in Iraq is no less controversial than supporting those suffering from genocide in Darfur.

Both are fighting against those who promote barbarity over civilization.

People, I hate to say it, but many of us have lost complete a grasp over what is important in life. I don't care if you hate Bush or not. I don't care if he stole the election or not. I don't care if he made the wrong choice in removing one genocidal dictator and allowing barbaric, backwards, cave-dwelling low-lifes to wreck havoc in Iraq.

We live in the PRESENT people, can we please stop letting our petty personal grudges get in the way of what is important??

I'm sorry that so many of you want the effort in Iraq to fail just to prove that you were right and Bush was wrong. It is completely disrespectful to our soldiers on the ground, the people of Iraq who will have to deal directly with the consequences if we leave, and our general sense of decency.

Some of you people make me sick.

9:39: Of course the president's email is held to higher standards. But is there anything at all that could be even mildly objectionable in the president's email? (FYI, This is a rhetorical question. The answer is no.)

10:21 - yes, there is ("cynism" being one of the more obvious mildly objectionable things in his e-mail, and I also encourage you to review the last two sentences of his first paragraph). I will however not get into a larger argument over semantics. I'm glad you at least recognize my point of view and I have conceded that there is some substance to what he is saying.

To conclude, I'll just say that it's very likely the Swiss partner typed out that e-mail (after 11pm his time) on a blackberry device or such w/o an English spellcheck feature. But I also feel what he said is of more relevance than how he said it.

That's about it.

2:41 - "I did not appreciate your ... creating negative energy" is GT-speak (or "President" Rosenbaum-speak) for "How dare you (a shareholder!) speak your mind or say anything to question or dissent even mildly from the firm 'culture'?" Yes, it's valley-girl speak, but remember, we're talking GT here, not a real law firm.

The vaunted "GT culture," by the way, is to keep your head down and not get noticed by brass objecting to or asking any questions about anything. I guess Zurich didn't get the memo.

This thread is not a high water mark of intelligent life. Who would have guessed so many firms don't have a prescription drug program. Where is all the money going?

It is most interesting for a european to note that the US can not properly take care of their soldiers and the war budget does not allow to care for the wounded soldiers. But cannon fudder [sic] is probably not budgeted by Cheney to be alloiwed [sic] to call home. (Why should I make up for the difference?)

indeed, why should anyone do anything charitable? helping the poor? f that, why should i make up the difference where govt has failed?

all firms should stop all pro bono and any other activities that could possibly be construed as political, that would be great.

Mark you calendars:

August 30, 2007. A Swiss man developes a sense of morality. Clearly not a banker.

Here's why the president is right: because he's the boss. Plain and simple. If the Swiss lawyer's feelings are hurt, then he can find a new firm. The original email was absolutely inflamatory and inappropriate. It is entirely within the firm leader's bounds to smack that down to ensure that there isn't a firm-wide flaming war in response to the original email. Might the president have phrased some things a little differently? Perhaps. But you have to consider this in context. This is about sending troops PHONE CARDS so they can call their loved ones; it's not in aid of war or aggression. If the Swiss lawyer were reasonable, he would be able to tell the difference. But, alas, people who send firm-wide emails like this one are, without fail, unreasonable people.

Also, just to pick up on a minor point... I can't help but laugh reading the comments from people trying to DEFEND the Swiss lawyer's English. Seriously. If you're admitted to the NY bar, and you feel the urge to send an email to thousands of English-speaking colleagues, then you better have a better grasp of the English language. Otherwise, you invite ridicule. No doubt if I sent a similarly terrible email in broken German, my Swiss and German colleagues would laugh and not take me seriously. Come up with all the hypothetical excuses you want for his poor showing (e.g., he was typing on a blackberry late at night in the dark while watching the Federer match and eating chocolates). But his English is indefensibly poor.

Don't you guys sleep? I think the biggest issue is that he sent it firm wide. He should have only sent it to his superiors. So according to some, it would be OK for me to send something like this; I don't think I will choose a firm that does pro bono for death penalty cases, or, that helps the poor, it is against my political agenda. Also, I think I will send it to the entire firm actually stating how much I disagree with it.

I personally will continue to support the troops, as they are my people, my friends, and my future. As a poster said above, you guys may want to start getting your priorities straight.

The notion that the troops can do wrong is precisely what fuels the hubris displayed by some members of our military both on this board and elsewhere in the world. Face it "fellow soldiers" you are fed on this constant barrage of honour, country, and adrennaline only so that you will sign up for a chance to be killed or maimed at some bureaucrat's command; all this for 25000 dollars. Apart from that we are not that different.

The fact that someone can say that Iraq is an international mission and that the US isn't an occupying force in Iraq with a straight face makes me weep for the future of this country.

8:40 was right on the button, IMHO.

This partner can go to hell. Supporting our troops isn't partisan ... IT'S AMERICAN

el davo--[yelling] "it's American"

And the complaining partner is Swiss.

INFLAMMATORY COMMENT!

To everyone critizing the guy's English: Wie wärs wänn ihr dumme Stricher zerst mal irgend e Främdsprach lerned? S muess ja nöd Schwizerdütsch si, irgende Sprach würd lange. Oder wenigstens richtig Englisch lerne, wänn i all die Fähler i eue posts gseh wird eim ja halbe schlecht...

Looks like the guy was just rambling, he couldn't put a coherent thought together in the slightest.

As one of those troops that was in Iraq, I'm not really offended by this because he looked like he was roundabout trying to say that he supported the troops.

The people who can really fuck off and die are all the other partners who only offered $10 for the phone cards.

What a d-bag. So much for "support the troops, oppose the war."

BTW, do all GT partners write this poorly?

Oh, please. This is so typical of Europeans. They are so incredibly shallow that they can't see the full picture. I hate the war - despise it - hate Bush - despise our rogue government - but I refuse to take that out on the troops who are a NECESSARY part of any industrialized nation.

The people who should feel bad are the ones for whom English is their first language and they still can't pass the NY bar.

I find this whole episode, with bad grammar, rampant spelling errors, too many reply-all e-mails and terrible judgment to be pretty much what I have come to expect from Greenberg Traurig. Seriously, it's like your stupid rich cousin started a law firm out of his basement and it grew to be huge despite employing a whole firm of stupid, rich cousins with more luck and family connections than common sense or lawyering ability.

The fact that the Department of Defense does such a poor job of providing for human welfare (terrible pay, terrible medical care, draconian policies and rules, coercive recruitment, involuntary retention) is itself a pretty serious indictment of any high-level military or administration officials. It's too bad the military culture is too rigid for a few to stand up and say "this is crazy, for just minor marginal cost we could take much better care of our people." And of course the Bush Administration just doesn't care. Chickenhawks make the most pathetic and ineffective warmongers.

Bush rocks, and Hanspeter is a freaking hippie!
Hippies sucks ass!

Bush rocks, and Hanspeter is a freaking hippie!
Hippies sucks ass!

Bush rocks, and Hanspeter is a freaking hippie!
Hippies sucks ass!

http://httpwww.tmz.com/2007/10/26/pam-to-blogger-i-am-not-addicted-to-coke/