New Feature: Infamous Pennsylvanians

Back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, WPSX-TV had an in-house series called The Pennsylvania Game. It was a trivia show about Pennsylvania history. The prize was usually a gift basket with various Pennsylvania-based products in it, so we’re not talking high-stakes. They also had a segment – sort of their Final Jeopardy! – in which the contestants had to guess the identity of a famous Pennsylvanian. The other questions in the game were multiple choice, but this was open-ended. There were three clues given throughout the show, and after each clue the contestants would write down what they thiought the identity of the Mystery Pennsylvanian was. The earlier the correct guess is made, the more points were awarded. I’m probably not doing it justice in my description. It really was a fun, informative show. You can still find episodes buried in the WPSU/WPSX website. Here’s one, Episode #1208, from January 18, 2004.

That was a lot of words to get to my point: there are just as many Infamous Pennsylvanians as there are famous Pennsylvanians. Some may say there are more, but that’s arguing over hyperboles. Which leads me to my newest feature: Infamous Pennsylvanians. It will be an occasional series. Anyone is eligible, living or dead. My only criteria is that the person have been born in or lived a significant portion of his or her life in Pennsylvania (i.e., long enough to consider one’s self a “Pennsylvanian.”) Some will be historic figures, other lesser-known regional people, and no doubt a few will be modern celebrities or, in the case of my first pick, by virtue of having popped up on my news aggregator as I was drafting this post, a Fox News Entertainer.

Andrea Tantaros

Allentown native and Lehigh University Graduate Andrea Tantaros has her own radio show. On Wednesday, she encouraged viewers of The Five to punch Obama voters in the face. In lieu of an apology, Tantaros took to the airwaves of her own radio show on Thursday to explain that “To be clear, I didn’t say punch Obama in the face” and said to a caller: “if anyone that you know who voted for President Obama, smack ’em down.”

Andrea Tantaros, another Infamous Pennsylvanian.

Watching a Master at Work

For reasons personal and professional, I’ve been closely following the Federal government’s price-fixing case against Apple, set to go to trial in New York next month.

Buried in the material released in the case are a series of emails between Steve Jobs and several people at News Corp, chief among them James Murdoch. Long story, short version: with several deft moves, Jobs brings Murdoch around to his way of thinking and closes the deal – on Apple’s terms. This is negotiating at its best.

Quartz Magazine has done a really good narrative piece stitching the emails together to show how Jobs did it. This should be required reading in business and law schools.

Regarding the trial

I think Apple wins this one. Their main argument to the jury will likely be this: The government is going after the wrong party. The real villain is Amazon.com, which has been engaging in illegal business practices to drive everyone else out of the market with artificially low, unsustainable, predatory prices. Apple sought to upset Amazon.com’s criminal applecart, brining sanity to the marketplace for the long-term benefit of producers (writers and publishers), booksellers (bookstores and, yes, even Amazon.com), and consumers (readers). If Apple made a tidy profit along the way, well, they are a company and are in the business of making money (by making truly magical products, as Jobs would say). The argument is simple, understandable, and has the added virtue of being true.

Finally, does anyone think it is a coincidence that the government primed the pump against Apple this week with its attacks on the company for their corporate tax policies? If you do, I have a bridge I’d like to show you.

As I wrote the other day, everybody hates a winner.