So when I saw Kim Kardashian’s new commercial for the SKIMS Ultimate Nipple Bra— which is essentially a bra with built-in hard nipples—my first reaction was to laugh. It pokes fun at the climate crisis in both a dark and racy way.

Here’s what the whole thing says:



See, it’s very funny! Except for one, super small, teeny-weeny thing:

Kim Kardashian, the person telling us this joke, is not doing it to ease the existential burden of living through the climate crisis—a burden she, a billionaire, does not personally have to grapple with.

Kim Kardashian, billionaire, is telling us this climate joke…to sell shit. Fossil-fuel derived shit. While she flies in a private jet that annually emits 610 times more than the average person emits in a year; while she operates multiple billion-dollar businesses dedicated to fueling unhinged consumerism of fossil fuel-derived plastic products; while she refuses to disclose the emissions of those businesses; and while she tells the rest of the world to be “realistic” about climate solutions.

Despite the vocal and frequently unfair denunciations the Biden administration has received from left and right alike for its response to Hamas’s terror attacks and their aftermath, I believe the policy is broadly correct. The administration’s response to the war in the Middle East has five main components:

1. Publicly embrace Israel in the wake of the October 7 terrorist attack and endorse its right to self-defense.
2. Privately warn Israel’s government not to rush into an expansive military response.
3. Denounce antisemitism.
4. Denounce anti-Muslim bias.
5. Endorse emergency military aid to Israel.

Progressives have greeted this combination of positions with horror, and its backlash has combined public protests by hundreds of Democratic staff, holding demonstrations at congressional hearings, with a level of vitriol that far exceeds anything it has previously raised against Biden.

The left’s dissent grows out of the belief that essentially any military response by Israel is wrong — either due to Israel’s indefensible occupation or because it will inevitably kill innocent Palestinians. I sympathize with both points, even though I am not willing to follow the logic of either one of them fully to the conclusion of ruling out any military response.

If Israel were to rely on special operations raids and airstrikes, it would be reverting to the “mowing the lawn” strategy it followed for years of trying to degrade and deter, but not defeat, Hamas. The 10/7 attack revealed that policy’s failure by showing that Hamas actually grew stronger and bolder after previous Israeli assaults. Israel’s goal now, understandably enough, is for Hamas to be “crushed and eliminated.” There is simply no way to achieve that objective without a major ground offensive.

Of course, there is no guarantee that Israel’s ground attack will be successful. Urban warfare is extremely difficult under the best of circumstances. Hamas has had years to build formidable defenses, including hundreds of miles of tunnels. Israel runs the risk of being trapped in costly guerrilla warfare without end while an international backlash builds against the loss of civilian life. Iran and Hezbollah could use the opportunity to open a new front against Israel in the north. Those dangers are very real. Even so, one should assume that Israel has well-developed plans for a military offensive.

Yet Israeli leaders also desperately need to come up with better plans for a political offensive to limit the fallout from its military operations and create the potential for a more lasting peace to emerge from the current bloodletting. So far, though, there is little indication that Israeli planners are thinking in those terms. If the Israeli military goes charging into the Gaza Strip without any idea of what the political end state will look like, it will be repeating the same error that the George W. Bush administration made in Iraq and Afghanistan — and likely consigning Israeli troops to years of costly, onerous and morale-sapping occupation duties.

It is, admittedly, very difficult to imagine how Israel could stabilize Gaza post-Hamas without taking charge once again. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy has come out with the best blueprint I’ve seen so far. Its experts — Robert Satloff, Dennis Ross and David Makovsky — suggest that Israel could establish an interim Palestinian administration to run the Gaza Strip until the Palestinian Authority could take over. Five Arab states that have peace agreements with Israel — Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco — could send security forces to help keep order. International organizations could rush in aid, and Israel could promise to lift the blockade that has immiserated Gaza ever since the Hamas takeover in 2007.