<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Checking In On&nbsp;Mickey]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[
<p>Yep, still bonkers in the <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/30/the-birth-certificate-4-step/#ixzz2AtOxVnEj" target="_self">bunker</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong></strong> I don’t think the bureuacrats at the BLS cook the data. But I <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-27/politics/obama.birth.certificate_1_birther-movement-president-barack-obama-birth-certificate?_s=PM:POLITICS" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">don’t  think it’s implausible to worry that census workers in the field might  somehow–spontaneously, subconsciously, and subtly–inflate the  “household” employment numbers</a>&#0160;when it looks like those numbers might decide a presidential election. Call me<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444897304578046260406091012.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Jack</a>.  … If the new &quot;establishment&quot; numbers–reported directly by  employers–confirm the relatively good news in last month’s household  survey, though, paranoia will&#0160;be difficult to sustain. … </p>
</blockquote>
<p>If you can&#39;t actually understand that passage, do not adjust your computer.</p>
]]></html></oembed>