{"id":998,"date":"2004-07-26T12:41:51","date_gmt":"2004-07-26T20:41:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/archives\/2004\/07\/26\/its-the-economy\/"},"modified":"2004-07-26T12:41:51","modified_gmt":"2004-07-26T20:41:51","slug":"its-the-economy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=998","title":{"rendered":"It's The Economy!"},"content":{"rendered":"

In his most most recent article “Dutch Debate”<\/a> Dr. Kurtz does three things:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Reiterates his theory that the campaign for same sex marriage has caused marriage rates to decline and out of wedlock births to rise in Scandinavia and in the Netherlands <\/li>\n
  2. Claims there are data to support his theory.<\/li>\n
  3. Tries to refute Dr. Lee Badgett’s<\/a> statistics which clearly contradict his theory.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    It would take more than one article to illustrate the huge volume of distortions and outright errors in “Dutch Debate”. I will not attempt to do so in one. Instead I will focus on those errors associated with Dr. Kurtz’s interpretation of the data describing the rise in the out of wedlock birthrate in the Netherlands. Dr. Kurtz described these data in “Going Dutch”<\/a>.
    \n
    \n<\/p>\n

    I will focus on the Dutch data for two reasons. The first reason is that Dr. Kurtz repeatedly emphasizes that the Dutch data are the best<\/i> evidence supporting his theory. The second reason is Dr. Badgett and I<\/a> presented similar data and arguments regarding the Dutch data. So, were Dr. Kurtz’s feeble attempts to refute Dr. Badgett’s arguments and data valid, they would also apply to some of my data and arguments.<\/p>\n

    So, to begin the counter argument to Kurtz’s counter argument to Badgett’s counter argument to Kurtz’s argument! In essence, what Dr. Kurtz has done is this: He advanced a theory. He is now trying to scrounge up data to support his theory.<\/p>\n

    As many people know, it is easy to advance theories, and especially spurious theories. Theories often emerge during “brain storming sessions,” and I imagine the spin meisters at conservative think tanks like the Hoover Institute<\/a> (where Dr. Kurtz works) often get together, have a few drinks and dream these things up. The challenge is finding data to support a theory. In my opinion, Dr. Kurtz is failing miserably in his attempt to support his theory; he cannot support his theory because it is incorrect and ridiculously implausible.<\/p>\n

    Although I believe his theory to be drivel, I am willing to consider it. To support his theory, Dr. Kurtz must show that all<\/i> of the following three things are true: <\/p>\n