Book Review: ‘Kurby the Climate Change Clam’

Kurby the Climate Change Clam by Rigoberta Menchu Dreamcatcher

(Published by the Democrat National Committee, 2016)

Kurby the Clam is tired of dead polar bears floating around his nice, clean ocean. Then his friend Fopsy the Transgender Whale tells him about some incredibly wise people who know how to put a stop to Global Warming. So Kurby hops onto his environmentally safe, rubber band-powered jet ski and goes zooming off to help stop Climate Change.

This new children’s book aims to educate kiddies to the absolute, otherwise-we’re-all-gonna-die necessity of giving government all the money and all the power it needs to control the environment and Save the Planet. Ms. Dreamcatcher is never bashful about praising Climate Change stalwarts like Michael Mann (“the best and wisest man now living”), John Kerry (“the greatest war hero since William the Conqueror”), and Barack Hussein Obama (“He made the sea levels go down!”).

She also makes irrefutable points in favor of Smart Growth and getting rid of air conditioners and refrigerators owned by the common people. As Kurby sagely observes, “Sometimes it’s necessary for deplorable people to give up their luxuries so that really cool and smart people can continue to enjoy them.”

To make the book easier for adults to read aloud to children, the publishers have included a supply of barf bags and a rope with which to tie the child to a chair.

Available at your local United Nations bookstore for a mere $359.95.

14 comments on “Book Review: ‘Kurby the Climate Change Clam’

  1. LOL – I love your satire and humor; although it “only hurts when I laugh.” I don’t believe liberals use the same mirrors as the rest of us do. PS: If I were a young parent of young persons, I would be doing their homework for them and spend the rest of the time re-educating them. Then I’d give them “Cliff Notes of Lies” so they’d pass exams & get the heck out as fast as they can – but only if I were one of the many who just cannot afford private or Christian school. Otherwise and for the time being, there wouldn’t be a problem.

    1. Homeschooling is more affordable and efficient than ever, and getting more so all the time.

      The problem with re-educating or de-programming your children when they’re in public school is, they probably can’t help thinking, “Why are you sending me there every day, if the things I learn there aren’t true?”

    2. My child would be learning about our Constitution from the day he could read. So he would already know why his government-controlled school is indoctrinating him in Common Core, political correctness, racism, islam, diversity & multiculturism – so even if he’s too young to do anything about it, he will grow up wanting to. The problems is, how do I apologize for all the adults who let this happen…

    3. I think what must be understood is that bad things happen because people are inherently sinful and can’t straighten themselves out: that’s why we need a Savior. That being the case, there’s no point in apologizing for what others do. It’s what we do that’s important.
      Public education is statist. It is based on the contention that not God but the state is the highest authority. It rejects the premise of original sin, and insists that man–if he has enough education, enough power, enough money–can solve all the world’s problems without God.
      And that’s why Christians must reject public education.

    4. You’re right. I’ve taught that it’s God’s law we must always follow, even when Jesus said “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” and explained the difference that even most Christians don’t understand. Thanks again for your fine wisdom, Lee Duigon.

  2. If only they could find a moment between all of the PC indoctrination to teach some actual history. Even the smirking dumb-butts I went to school with knew enough abou WW II to see this for what it is.

    While I hate what I see going on in the election campaign, I don’t worry too much about it. To quot Khalid Shoebat (former terrorist, now an evangelical) “God is the on,y Superpower.”

  3. The rubber-band powered Jet Ski spotted some thoughts. Nearly fifty years ago, there was a concerted effort to come up with less polluting automobiles and I recall reading a number of articles in car magazines about alternatives to what we had been using, internal combustion engines connected to the drive wheels mechanically.

    In the decades since, there have been a number of innovative changes and improvements to efficiency, but most of today’s automobiles are recognizable in terms of the technologies which existed fifty years ago.

    Hybrids have improved efficiency and work especially well in stop and go traffic, but there are concerns about battery life and the energy used and pollution caused by the processes required to manufacture these batteries. So, while tailpipe emissions may be reduced, the embedded energy and pollution offsets some of these reductions and the picture changes dramatically if the batteries are replaced at some point. I saw a technical analysis of this a while back and came away with the impression that If such a vehicle were driven past the life of the batteries it came with any environmental advantage would be nullified.

    I explain this only to demonstrate that analyzing these matters is not such a simple task. If someone actually made a rubber band powered vehicle, we would have to account for the energy that went into manufacturing and shipping the rubber, not to mention the literal sweat and effort of the poor soul that got to wind up the rubber band. Obviously, Lee is using this example satirically, but the thinking of many people these days is not all that far from the satirical device Lee is using.

    On my morning commute, I occasionally will see an electric car, complete with badges which state “Zero Emissions”. Wow! Who would have imagined it to be so easy, just buy a battery powered car and no more pollution . . . or maybe not. The energy to power that car comes from electricity, almost certainly provided by the same power grid which powers our homes and workplaces. In this locale, that probably means the coal/natural gas fired plant nearby. So, when the fellow driving the electric car is feeling sanctimonious about his “Zero Emissions” car, he is conveniently forgetting about the emissions coming out of a 400’ tall smokestack at the power plant.

    See, it’s not so simple. Perhaps, more to the point, those “Zero Emissions” badges are telling partial truths, at best. Indeed, there are no emissions coming from an exhaust pipe attached to the car, but that car’s exhaust pipe is simply out of site, at whichever power plant was involved in charging its batteries.

    Nature is filled with all sorts of conservation laws. If you toss a baseball forward you are pushing yourself backwards with just as much force as you are impelling the ball forward. If you threw a baseball that equaled your body weight, you’d probably fall over when you threw it. Nature does not give energy away, never once in all of history. We can make trade offs and, occasionally, these will work out in our favor, but quantum increases in efficiency and commensurate reductions in pollution are unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

    But take hope; what we have now is much more efficient than what we had in the past. A tiny fire to keep my water heater operating is much more efficient than boiling water on a wood stove, as my grandparents, and generations before them, did. If you think cars cause pollution problems, research what it was like back when New York City was horse-powered. We’ve made a lot of progress and we will continue to make progress, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a dramatic breakthrough. As one sage put it; “fusion is the power source of the future, and always will be”. 🙂

    1. Well said. The sad thing is that there are people whom are fooled by all of this and actually think they they are doing something wonderful. Don’t get me wrong, I laud their intentions, but it’s a far more complex matter than most people could so much as imagine.

      I’ve seen analysis and in most places, if you want to signal your virtue, a small conventional car, well maintained is probably the best solution. If you live in an area of heavy stop n’ go traffic, maybe a hybrid because of the advantage it gains by using braking energy to recharge the batteries, but even that advantage is slight.

      If you drive the open roads you’re probably better off with something conventional. BTW, emissions standards for all automobiles are stringent. Even high-performance cars with exceptionally powerful engines have to meet these same standards. Modern, computer-controlled engines are marvels of efficiency and clean operation.

      One thing I find laughable are the “whizzer bikes” I see occasionally. These are bicycles with tiny two-stroke engines added to them. They strike me as quite unsafe and the two-stroke engines on these bikes are gross emitters. What I find so laughable is the notion that these are some sort of enlightened transportation solution.

    2. What I’ve noticed is that many of the people whom are most vocal on these issues tend to exempt their own activities from this scrutiny. Someone making a living may be criticized because they drive a car to work, but that same critic somehow thinks that their self-perception of goodness makes their driving beyond the reach of their criticisms.

Leave a Reply