As no stranger to elitist e-mail lists, it was easy for me to reconstruct how the typical JournoList email chain went:
From: Ezra Klein
Subject: Global Warming
Is it just me, or are things getting hotter... aww yeah!
Reply From: Paul Krugman
Ezra, please remember to post [NSFW] in the subject line of any email with explicit material. The NY Times HR desk says I'll be fired if I'm caught looking at porn at work again.
Reply From: Ezra Klein
Sure thing Paul. On an unrelated note, you might enjoy this list of US Postal +4 Codes reverse sorted by gross GDP.
Reply From: Paul Krugman
Fool me once, shame on you, Ezra. Fool me six times, shame on me.
Reply From: Matt Yglesias
While we're on the subject of global warming, I find it somewhat fascinating that implementation of carbon taxes would be politically not dissimilar to implementation of cap and trade. Of course, theres many facets that are actually dissimilar, and the political aspects are not the only aspects meriting consideration. There's also things about it which I find to not be fascinating, or which somebody other than me may not find fascinating. However, as a general rule, one could assert with at least some confidence taht it's at least somewhat fascinating, except for when it's not.
Reply From: Nate Silver
Attached File: GlobalHeatRecord.xlsx
Good points, Matt. I thought this relevant.
Not everybody has the latest copy of Excel, poindexter. I've attached a copy everybody should be able to read.
Ezra! Cut it out!
sup dawgs. bumped into tucky c at the clizzub last night. he wants to score a hookup to jlist. told him to SIZZUCK DEEZ NIZZUTZ!!!!!
FWIW, I ran transcripts of Tucker Carlson's latest 55 media appearances into a simplistic regression model I constructed which considers factors ranging from word usage, partisan leaning (sometimes referred to as house bias) and bowtie color. I caution that the results are preliminary, and may change as the model gains sophistication and rigor.
At a 95% confidence level, I can place Tucker Carlson's ideology between the spectrum of "somewhat liberal" and "somewhat conservative." (For more rigor as to the definition of these terms, I direct you to my blog). To translate into plain English, with a margin of error of just a few percentage points from the mean ideological affinity of "moderate", there's a greater than 95% confidence that 99% of the time Mr. Carlson will express an opinion within three standard deviations of the median. This means he's liable express an opinion on, say, tax incentives, but unlikely to call for something extreme like nuking Mexico.
What does this mean for our e-mail listserv? I'm not basing this on any kind of numbers, but my hunch is that he likes us and wants to be our friend. I'd recommend admitting him, as it could ultimately slant the ideology of his Daily Caller website in our favor.
Nate, you're annoying me. Look behind you, a three.
Really?!? Where!!! BRB...
To change the subject briefly, has anybody else noticed that Republicans can be less than honest in their negotiating tactics? I've been thinking about it lately, and it seems like sometimes they say things which later turn out to be untrue. Perhaps this is a series of accidents, but I'm starting to think it's happening regularly enough to be not be deliberate.
But if this is indeed true, I can't figure out what Republicans would stand to gain by speaking dishonestly in negotiations. After all, everybody knows honesty is the best policy. And if people start to distrust them, then it would leave them in a weaker negotiating position.
The only logical course of action is to continue to negotiate in good faith with the Republicans.
Reply From: 
