AT points me to this column by Andrew Leonard, who writes:

I [Leonard] asked my readers to explain Felix Salmon’s statement that “I’d say p=0.3 right now that Barack Obama’s first major act as POTUS will be the nationalization of Citigroup.”

What follows are some amusing quotes, including this one from Kobi “diagnostics for multiple imputations” Abayomi:

People pick a cutoff — arbitrarily, really — and a p-value lower than the cutoff is pronounced “Significant.” Alchemy! . . . p-values are a bit passe, if not completely gauche — statistically speaking. Modelling, these days, is more particular (if not exact). Macho statisticians are proud of tight (posterior (bayesian)) confidence intervals. Real men keep p-values to themselves.

I think there’s some confusion here. Leonard’s correspondents were making things too complicated. Salmon was using “p” as jargon to represent “probability,” not “p-value.” Thus, he was saying that he saw it as a 3 in 10 chance that Obama’s first major act would be to nationalize Citigroup. Everybody is so hot under the collar about p-values that they didn’t notice the direct interpretation.