Mediaboss Marketing

The top Democratic candidates will soon take the stage at the next debate, and oh boy, are party leaders squirming. Up until late last week, when Andrew Yang made the cutoff by a hair, all six of those making their pitch were white#debatesowhite, as the hashtag called it. Worse yet, half of those Caucasians are old enough to be carrying Medicare cards. As Frank Bruni wrote in last weeks Sunday column, for a party that celebrates diversity, pitches itself to underdogs and prides itself on being future-minded and youth-oriented, thats a freaky, baffling turn of events.

Some blamed the freaky turn on billionaire money crowding out the merely rich little guys, while others pointed a finger at the DNC for a dysfunctional qualifying system and a primary calendar privileging Iowa and New Hampshire, both largely white states. Also popular is the theory of electabilityif voters top priority is nominating someone who can beat Donald Trump, white old-timers seem like the safest bet. But the facts behind #debatesowhite suggest that, despite the best efforts of progressives and the party establishment to hype 2020 candidates in terms of their race, gender, and LGBTQ status, the Democratic rank-and-file have limited use for identity politics.

Remember that the Dems started the year with a historically diverse field: two blacks, an Asian, a Hispanic, and an out gay man. In the following months, a sizable cluster of women joined the fray. Finally, Americans would see a field that looked like America. Yet 12 months later, all the nonwhite candidatesexcept Yang, who has explicitly disavowed identity politicsare either going or gone. Even Kamala Harris, whose Jamaican father and Indian mother made her intersectionally intersectionalblack, Asian, female, and immigrant to bootwill not be standing in front of a podium.

By the logic of identity politics, this shouldnt have happened. Blacks make up 21 percent of the Democratic party. That should be enough, some might think, to guarantee substantial support for at least one of the black candidates, but it hasnt worked that way. Joe Biden is the favorite among black Dems. In fact, they seem to love the Scranton-born grandfather; with 43 percent of black voters support, he registers 30 points higher than anyone else. The irony wasnt lost on New York magazines lefty politics writer, Eric Levitz: If Joe Biden retains his current standing, then the Democrats 2020 nominee will better reflect the preferences of black Democrats than those of white ones.

True, the former vice presidents strength might well stem from his connection to Barack Obama. And theres some evidence that African-Americans are more likely to come to the polls if there is a black candidateat least if he or she is running as a Democrat. About a third of black Democrats say that they would be more enthusiastic if the nominee were also black. But color preference can easily take a back seat to actual policies, especially now, as the party veers left. Black voters are less likely to call themselves liberal than white voters, suggesting that they will be more moderate on many issues than the black media and advocates assigned to speak for them, as well as the partys white elites.

Latino voters, making up 12 percent of the party, have proved even more indifferent than blacks to the rules of identity politics. Julin Castro, the only Latino in the race, was supposed to be their guy. But a recent Noticias Telemundo poll of Latino voters found him in fifth place, attracting a mere 2 percent of his presumed base. Nor were Hispanic voters particularly interested in other minority candidates; theyre also getting behind Biden (26 percent) and Bernie Sanders (18 percent). According to the New York Times, Sanders has collected more money from Latino voters than any other candidate in the Democratic field; hes raised three times as much from the group as Barack Obama did in 2008.

Harris, who dropped out of the race due to lackluster fundraising and falling poll numbers, is the most striking example of the failure of identity politics to catch fire among the electorate. No one drank from the diversity well more deeply than Harris. The former San Francisco district attorney and now California senator launched her campaign at Frank Ogawa Plaza, named after an Oakland civil rights leader, on Martin Luther King Day, and the anniversary of the beginning of Shirley Chisholms presidential run in 1972. She called herself a child of Oakland, another signal to black voters that she was one of them, and turned the fact that she was bused as a child into a largely white school into a star turn in the first debate.

But in the end, her diverse identity and policy ideas appealed more to political and media elites than the Democratic hoi polloi. She attracted big name Hollywood supporters. The Washington Post Pundit Ranking gave Kamala Harris the best shot at defeating Trump five times in a row before realizing voters were just not that into her. Even at her campaigns peak, polls showed she held more support from white liberals than from black voters, National Journals Josh Kraushaar noted.

And what about the much-hyped womens vote? The Tao of identity politics teaches us that women should feel a sense of solidarity with their sisters, but thats not the way theyve been acting. Kirsten Gillibrand, the campaign seasons star avatar of womens issues, was best known for her fight for paid leave and against sexual abuse in the military and on college campuses. Those efforts didnt help her in a national campaign. Though almost 60 percent of self-identified Democrats are women, Gillibrand could never break 2 percent support, and she failed to meet the donor threshold for Septembers debate. She ran as a white woman of privilege, telling voters, I can talk to those white women in the suburbs and explain to them what white privilege actually is. Evidently, women of color were unimpressed, while white ladies were not amused; her candidacy deflated like an old balloon.

Elizabeth Warren, the highest polling of the Democratic women still standing, is finding a bit more support from women than menabout 2.9 points more. Certainly Warren is saying all the right Democratic things about familiar issues, announcing ambitious plans to undercut restrictive abortion laws, narrow the pay gap for women of color, establish universal child care, and reduce maternal mortality.

This could bring more women on board the Warren train, but she shouldnt count on it. Theres little evidence that women as a group gravitate toward female candidates, though they look like they will in hypothetical matchups. Women are likely to vote Democratic by a considerable margin, but thats true no matter who the nominee. What looks like women voting for women is usually just women voting for Democrats, Kathleen Dolan, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee explained to Nate Silvers 538 blog. The aspiring glass-ceiling breaker Hillary Clinton had a 12-point margin of victory among women, virtually identical to Barack Obamas 13- and 11-point wins with female voters in his two presidential runs. Even women avowing a strong sense of shared gender identity were no more likely to come through for her.

And what about Andrew Yang, the candidate who, in a last-minute save, helped the Dems escape a dreaded optics of white supremacy at the Democratic debate? Ironically, the political establishment has been hellbent on ignoring Yangs impressive candidacy even though he is nonwhite. MSNBC and CNN have forgotten to include the Taiwanese-American in graphics and polls on several occasions, even as he was polling better than other minority candidates who producers were able to remember. Other outlets got his name wrong, an error that would have given competitor networks chyron material for days if he were a black or Latino or female candidate. Does anyone doubt that Yangs invisibility is because he is Asian, an uncomfortably ambiguous status within the metaphysics of identity politics? Because Asians, particularly the Taiwanese, have been immensely successful in America, they cloud any simple narrative of crushing white power and racism.

Finally, we come to Pete Buttigieg, the first openly gay person to make a serious showing in a presidential primary season. That has not been enough to protect him from attacks from progressive Democrats, some gay, who are ordinarily the most vociferous supporters of LGBT causes. Progressives have been enraged with the mayor of South Bend for his stint at McKinsey, the global consultancy firm. They have been equally incensed about a photo of Buttigieg raising money with members of the Salvation Army, in their view a homophobic organization. He has been canceled from some homosexual circles for not being gay enough. Nation contributor David Klion retweeted a thread accusing the mayor of showing off a token black woman at campaign events. Mayor Pete is an exploitative twerp is the sort of description popular in Twitters more progressive precincts.

Its not the first time, and probably wont be the last, that the Democratic political class has failed to heed the message that those who live by identity politics often die by identity politics.

Kay S. Hymowitz is a City Journal contributing editor, the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and the author of Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys.

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Read more:
The Failure of Democrat's Identity Politics to Catch Fire Among the Electorate - City Journal

Getty

The Liberal Democrats will soon begin the process of electing their third leader in less than a year after Jo Swinson lost her seat in a shock result at this month's general election.

The pro-European Union party secured 11 House of Commons seats last week, one fewer than it won at the 2017 general election. Swinson lost her East Dunbartonshire constituency to Scottish National Party candidate Amy Callaghan.

The next leader of the Liberal Democrats will be tasked with establishing a new raison d'tre for the party after it failed to stop Brexit. Boris Johnson, boosted by an 80-seat majority, is set to take the UK out of the EU in January.

The contest is expected to officially get underway in late January with party figures keen to choose Swinson's successor before the Labour Party chooses its new leader to replace Jeremy Corbyn.

A Liberal Democrat source told Business Insider: "Now more than ever, the country needs a strong opposition. Given the frothing civil war on Labour benches, you can bet it won't be Labour stepping up to the plate."

They added: "The questions the candidates must answer is just how they see the UK's relationship with our European partners, how the party converts support into seats and on what issues the party will carve out as our key fights over the next few years."

Here are the likely candidates in the race to become the new leader of the Liberal Democrats.

WIktor Szymanowicz/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Moran is widely regarded as the favorite to win. One senior party figure told Business Insider: "It's Layla's to lose."

Senior Liberal Democrats including current members of Parliament urged Moran to go for the leadership when the party last held a leadership contest earlier in the year. Swinson and Ed Davey ended up being the only candidates.

At the time, the MP for Oxford West and Abingdon believed it was too soon to go for the top job, having only been elected in 2017. She also wanted to focus on shoring up her majority, after winning her seat with a majority of just 816.

However, last week she was returned to Parliament with a much bigger majority of 8,943, meaning she is in a more secure position to go for the leadership this time around.

Moran, who is the first UK MP of Palestinian descent, is popular with Liberal Democrat members. Her supporters say her pitch is strong because unlike the party's two most recent leaders, she did not serve in coalition with David Cameron's Conservatives, and will not be grilled on her party's record in government like her predecessors were.

Moran has on a number of occasions called on her party to be more lucid in explaining what it represents.

In her last interview with Business Insider, she said the party ought to whittle down its pitch to handful of clear policies, saying: "We are very good at talking about a whole host of things but then people ask 'but what do you actually stand for?'"

Aaron Chown/PA Images via Getty Images

Moran's closest leadership rival is set to be Ed Davey.

The MP for Kingston and Surbiton is the party's co-interim leader along with outgoing party president, Sal Brinton.

Davey ran to be Liberal Democrat leader earlier this year, but lost out to Swinson. He has so far evaded questions on whether he intends to run this time around, but party figures expect him to stand.

Supporters say he'd be best choice for the Liberal Democrats as he has the most developed idea of what the party should be and what it ought to stand for now that the mission to stop Brexit has failed.

A party figure who supported Davey in the last leadership contest said that compared to Swinson, he was more focused on issues other than trying to stay in the EU, and wanted to talk about "the intellectual beating heart of the party."

They said that Davey was best-placed to help the party figure out a new purpose.

"We are a bit bruised, Brexit is almost certainly going to happen, and some of those single-issue supporters are going to peel away," they told Business Insider.

Davey put fighting climate change front and centre of his last leadership campaign.

Speaking in the House of Commons this week as the party's interim leader, he told Speaker Lindsay Hoyle that the Liberal Democrats would prioritise tackling the climate emergency in this new parliament.

Aaron Chown/PA Images via Getty Images

Christine Jardine, the Liberal Democrat MP for Edinburgh West, is said to be considering a leadership bid.

Formerly a prominent journalist in Scotland, Jardine was first elected in 2017 and is a popular figure within the party.

One party figure who intends to support Jardine if she decides to enter the upcoming leadership contest described her as a "live underdog" who "might surprise a few people."

"She'll start as third favorite but she's very good on TV and has not had same exposure as Ed and Layla," they said.

However, while an impressive leadership campaign would likely help Jardine raise her profile, the odds of winning would still be heavily stacked against her.

Lib Dem figures point to the fact that she recently failed to win the contest to become the party's next president, losing out to grassroots party blogger, Mark Pack.

Aaron Chown/PA Images via Getty Images

Daisy Cooper has been only an MP for a matter of days, but has indicated that she could stand to be party leader.

Cooper, who was elected the MP for St Albans last week, told LBC that her lack of parliamentary experience was not a big issue. She unsuccessfully ran for Parliament twice before winning her seat in southeast England this month.

"I've worked in campaigns for a long time," she told the radio station. "I've got big ambitions for what we can achieve in parliament as a small team in the Lib Dems."

Lib Dem figures say that while Cooper has very little chance of winning the upcoming contest, throwing her hat in the ring would help her secure some valuable exposure early in her House of Commons career.

She is highly-rated within the Liberal Democrats and seen as a leading light among its next generation of politicians at a time when the party has lost some of its most seasoned and well-known MPs in Swinson and Sir Vince Cable.

Cooper is close to Swinson and worked on her leadership campaign earlier this year.

See original here:
Who will be the next leader of the Liberal Democrats? - Business Insider

In 1997, Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasparov, the reigning world chess champion. In 2011, Watson defeated Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter, the worlds best Jeopardy players. In 2016, AlphaGo defeated Ke Jie, the worlds best Go player. In 2017, DeepMind unleashed AlphaZero, which trounced the world-champion computer programs at chess, Go, and shogi.

If humans are no longer worthy opponents, then perhaps computers have moved so far beyond our intelligence that we should rely on their superior intelligence to make our important decisions. Nope.

Despite their freakish skill at board games, computer algorithms do not possess anything resembling human wisdom, common sense, or critical thinking. Deciding whether to accept a job offer, sell a stock, or buy a house is very different from recognizing that moving a bishop three spaces will checkmate an opponent. That is why it is perilous to trust computer programs we dont understand to make decisions for us.

Consider the challenges identified by Stanford computer science professorTerry Winograd,which have come to be known asWinograd schemas.For example, what does the word it refer to in this sentence?

I cant cut that tree down with that axe; it is too [thick/small].

If the bracketed word is thick, then it refers to the tree; if the bracketed word is small, then it refers to the axe. Sentences like these are understood immediately by humans but are very difficult for computers because they do not have the real-world experience to place words in context.

ParaphrasingOren Etzioni,CEO of the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, how can machines take over the world when they cant even figure out what it refers to in a simple sentence?

When we see a tree, we know it is a tree. We might compare it to other trees and think about the similarities and differences between fruit trees and maple trees. We might recollect the smells wafting from some trees. We would not be surprised to see a squirrel run up a pine or a bird fly out of a dogwood. We might remember planting a tree and watching it grow year by year. We might remember cutting down a tree or watching a tree being cut down.

A computer does none of this. It can spellcheck the word tree, count the number of times the word is used in a story, and retrieve sentences that contain the word. But computers do not understand what trees are in any relevant sense. They are likeNigel Richards,who memorized the French Scrabble dictionary and has won the French-language Scrabble World Championship twice, even though he doesnt know the meaning of the French words he spells.

To demonstrate the dangers of relying on computer algorithms to make real-world decisions, consider an investigation of risk factors for fatal heart attacks.

I made up some household spending data for 1,000 imaginary people, of whom half had suffered heart attacks and half had not. For each such person, I used a random number generator to create fictitious data in 100 spending categories. These data were entirely random. There were no real people, no real spending, and no real heart attacks. It was just a bunch of random numbers. But the thing about random numbers is that coincidental patterns inevitably appear.

In 10 flips of a fair coin, there is a 46% chance of a streak of four or more heads in a row or four or more tails in a row. If that does not happen, heads and tails might alternate several times in a row. Or there might be two heads and a tail, followed by two more heads and a tail. In any event, some pattern will appear and it will be absolutely meaningless.

In the same way, some coincidental patterns were bound to turn up in my random spending numbers. As it turned out, by luck alone, the imaginary people who had not suffered heart attacks spent more money on small appliances and also on household paper products.

When we see these results, we should scoff and recognize that the patterns are meaningless coincidences. How could small appliances and household paper products prevent heart attacks?

A computer, by contrast, would take the results seriously because a computer has no idea what heart attacks, small appliances, and household paper products are. If the computer algorithm is hidden inside a black box, where we do not know how the result was attained, we would not have an opportunity to scoff.

Nonetheless, businesses and governments all over the world nowadays trust computers to make decisions based on coincidental statistical patterns just like these. One company, for example, decided that it would make more online sales if it changed the background color of the web page shown to British customers from blue to teal. Why? Because they tried several different colors in nearly 100 countries. Any given color was certain to fare better in some country than in others even if random numbers were analyzed instead of sales numbers. The change was made and sales went down.

Many marketing decisions, medical diagnoses, and stock trades are now done via computers. Loan applications and job applications are evaluated by computers. Election campaigns are run by computers, including Hillary Clintons disastrous 2016presidential campaign.If the algorithms are hidden inside black boxes, with no human supervision, then it is up to the computers to decide whether the discovered patterns make sense and they are utterly incapable of doing so because they do not understand anything about the real world.

Computers are not intelligent in any meaningful sense of the word, and it is hazardous to rely on them to make important decisions for us. The real danger today is not that computers are smarter than us, but that wethinkcomputers are smarter than us.

Featured image credit: Lumberjack Adventures by Abby Savage. CC0 via Unsplash.

Read the rest here:

AI is dangerous, but not for the reasons you think. - OUPblog

We wish you a headless robot/ We wish you a headless robot/ We wish you a headless robot/ and an alpha zero. If that ditty lacked a certain something, you should be going Da da da doom! about the festive piece in Saturdays Post about a computer saying Roll Over Beethoven and finishing his fragmentary 10th Symphony for him, possibly as a weirdly soulless funeral march.

Evidently this most ambitious project of its type ever attempted will see AI replicate creative genius ending in a public performance by a symphony orchestra in Bonn, Beethovens birthplace part of celebrations to mark the 250th anniversary of the composers birth. Why its not being performed by flawless machines synthesizing perfect tones is unclear.

What is clear is that its one of those plans with only two obvious pitfalls. It might fail. Or it might work.

Its one of those plans with only two obvious pitfalls. It might fail. Or it might work

A bad computer symphony would be awful, like early chess programs beneath contempt in their non-human weakness. But now their non-human strength is above contempt, as they dispatch the strongest grandmasters without emotion.

So my main concern here isnt with the headless Beethoven thing failing. Its with it succeeding. I know theres no stopping progress, that from mustard gas we had to go on to nuclear weapons then autonomous killer bots. But must we whistle so cheerfully as we design heartless successors who will even whistle better than us?

Its strange how many people yearn for the abolition of man. From New Soviet Man to Walden II, radicals cant wait to reinvent everything, including getting rid of dumb old languages where bridges have gender, and dumb old Adam and Eve into the bargain. Our ancestors stank. And we stink. The founder of behaviourist B.F. Skinners utopian Walden II chortles that when his perfect successors arrive the rest of us will pass on to a well-deserved oblivion.

So who are these successors? In That Hideous Strength, C.S. Lewiss demented scientist Filostrato proclaims that In us organic life has produced Mind. It has done its work. After that we want no more of it. We do not want the world any longer furred over with organic life, like what you call the blue mould What if were nearly there?

Freed of the boring necessities of life we might be paddocked in a digital, this-worldly Garden of Eden. But unless we are remade, we shall be more than just restless there. Without purpose we would go insane, as in Logans Run or the planet Miranda.

Ah, but we shall be remade. Mondays Post profiled Jennifer Doudna, inventor of the Crispr-Cas9 gene-editing technique so simple and powerful theres an app for it. Scientists can now dial up better genes on their smartphones and leave all the messy calculating to the machines. But if the machines can outcompose Beethoven, why would they leave the creative redesign of humans to us?

If the machines can outcompose Beethoven, why would they leave the redesign of humans to us?

To her credit, Prof. Doudna has nightmares about Hitler welcoming her invention. But forget Hitler. Here comes Leela to edit us away. And if Walden IIs eagerly anticipated design of personalities and control of temperament are within reach, and desirable, why should the new ones look anything like our current wretched ones? Is there anything to cherish in fallible man? If not, what sleep shall come?

So as we ponder Christmas, if we do, let us remember that 2,000 years ago the world was turned upside down by a God made Man because he loved weakness not strength. As a baby, then in the hideous humiliation of crucifixion, Christ gave a dignity to the helpless and downtrodden you find nowhere else including operating systems. Is it all rubbish, from the theology to the morality?

Years ago I argued for genetic modifications to restore the normal human template. But not to improve it, from eagle eyes to three legs to eight feet tall. But what will the computers think, and why should they? If nature is an obstacle to transcendence, where will they get their standards? Not from us. Nor will they want a bunch of meat around, sweating, bruising, rotting. Say goodnight, HAL.

Already algorithmic pop music is not just worse but in some important way less human. Where is Greensleeves or Good King Wenceslas in this Brave New World? And where should it be?

Shall the digital future burst forth from our abdomens and laser away the mess? Or is there something precious about us frail, vain, petty and, yes, smelly mortals? If so, what?

Many people love Christmas without being Christian. But many do not. And I think it comes down to your ability, or inability, to love humans as we are, which the Bible says God did but which supercomputers have no obvious reason to do.

So sing a carol for fallen man while the machines work on a funeral march.

Read the original:

John Robson: Why is man so keen to make man obsolete? - National Post

I keep seeing the same employee:feels he has been mistreated by the employer, nothing the employer can say or do will change that, sends lengthy and agitated communications to multiple people, and is not specifically threatening, but the nature, frequency and tone of the communications is unusual and concerning. Of course its not really the same employee, but there sure is a similar profile that keeps popping up, probably aided by our technological age that lets anybody say anything without the accountability that comes with in-person communication.

Clients know I use the chess game analogy for working through many employee situations.What is the key point of thinking of it as a chess game? While we all want to plan our business affairs, in chess you cant go into the game with all 50 moves you are going to make spelled out.Why? Because the other guy is going to make moves too.

You dont know what the other guys moves will be, but in response to each move, there is an optimal move for you to make.If you calmly and methodically do so, you are very likely going to win. I have yet to see one of these types of employees who is a chessmaster. Im sure he exists, but generally the composite employee we are describing lacks the self-awareness and reflection to play this game well for very long.

The key concept is control, in several respects. You dont need to like sports analogies as much as I do to know that dictating the terms of engagement as much as you can helps you win.In my experience, it is particularly important when dealing with these types of employees to (calmly and politely) let them know they are not going to be in charge.There are many aspects to this:

1. Thou shalt not take the bait.He may say things that are untrue, exaggerated, misconstrued, aggravating, etc. but at no time will we lose our cool.Thats what he wants. Of course, communications that are harassing or threatening cannot be tolerated, but Im talking about the employee who is just smart enough not to cross that line (but not as smart as he thinks). You need to stay always polite, and always open to any information and concerns he may want to bring to your attention. Never react.

2. Have a point person.This is valuable for two reasons.One, not everybody at your business will be equally equipped to handle these tough situations.Figure out who it should be and put her in charge. Two, the employee needs to know he cant forum shop whoever he communicates with, it all comes back to the point person.He does not get to try different points of contract to find the answer he wants.

3. My lawyer wed love to talk to him/her.Many employees reference things their lawyer said.My experience is that in most (again, not all) situations where the employee truly has a lawyer, we have heard from the lawyer.Employees are entitled to have lawyers, but dont let him get away with throwing that around without testing it.Try something like this: Maybe it would be helpful for your lawyer to talk to the companys lawyer. If you will give me the contact information I will pass it along.Let the employee know you are going to gently verify his statements.

4. Communicate in writing. Most of us would agree, we could use a lot more in-person communication and a lot fewer emails in the workplace.But the usual rules do not apply here. Things you say will be misinterpreted and twisted we need to keep as much as possible in writing to protect your business going forward.

5. Be responsive but not too responsive.Not every email requires a response in real time.Indeed, for every five-line email you send, you probably get a 50-line email in return within the hour, so where we can, lets wait a couple of days before we trigger the next one.Certainly to position the company to defend itself in any future disputes we need to be responsive, but the employee does not get to set the pace of communications.

This may sound harsh.Note, it is a very small number of employees we need to think about in these terms, they just happen to monopolize a disproportionate amount of employment lawyers time.Thinking this way about the occasional employee who is sucking the life out of your business does not prevent you from being a caring, compassionate, and inclusive employer.

Also note, in some cases, underneath the bluster the employee may have a legitimate concern. After all, if you are like all of my clients, you employ human beings, and we are not perfect.The employee has the right to express concerns about the workplace, including to other employees.(Some employers do not realize, even if you do not have a union, the federal National Labor Relations Act allows employees to talk about their working conditions, including their compensation.)Any concerns raised by the employee should be handled just as they would be with concerns raised by any other employee.

Easy?Not at all.These situations can have many moving parts and, despite my point above about having a point person (likely somebody with an HR function), can put a front-line supervisor in a difficult position she is not trained for. There is a lot to balance and a lot of judgment calls. But if we start from the assumption that the employer is going to set the terms and calmly work through the chess game, we are better positioned to win that game than the difficult employee.

This article should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own lawyer on any specific legal questions you may have concerning your situation.

Barnes & Thornburg LLPis a large, full-service law firm that seeks to take a more entrepreneurial and cost-effective approach both to client service and its own business.

Here is the original post:

Playing Chess with the "Mistreated" Employee Who Won't Stop Typing - themetropreneur.com