Have you seen Leopard?

Perfect Companion Gift To Shoe-Phone!

Those crazy guys at B&H never stop scouring the World of High-Tech on the Information Superhighway, I tell you what! Look at what they came up with now: a hidden surveillance camera that's hidden inside – get this – a cell phone. And here's the incredible part: this camera not only shoots in color, but it's wireless, which means you get "true [sic] portable hidden surveillance". And consider this: "Going wireless also eliminates the chances of someone stumbling upon an RCA cable and figuring out the true purpose of this device." Wow! A cell-phone camera that's both wireless and portable! Needless to say, it's a non-functioning cell phone, but hey, what do you expect for only $389.95? I think I'll order two and duct-tape one of them to my computer monitor!

Eastern Freedom Front

In a move that's getting little press attention in the U.S., but Boot-loads of coverage in Germany, Secretary of Defense Gates sent a letter to the German Minister of Defense requesting that the Bundeswehr redeploy to southern Afghanistan. Germany currently has 3,500 troops in the north of Afghanistan, engaged mainly in projects such as building schools and bridges. Germany's decision last March to send a whopping six Tornado jets to Afghanistan at NATO's request unleashed a political maelstrom in Berlin, even though the jets were to be used strictly for reconaissance. Now, Gates is prodding the Germans to get serious and send troops south. You know, where the fighting is – and where the Taliban is currently kicking NATO butt.

Most German commentators, from all sectors of the political terrain, have been quick to point out the obvious connection between the thin deployment of US forces in southern Afghanistan and that, er, other conflict a couple of countries to the west. In effect, Germany is being asked to send troops to the eastern front of Bush's Mess O'Potamia, and they don't remember signing up for that.

In case you're wondering, Germany is in Afghanistan in the first place because it's a (key) member of NATO. And NATO is in Afghanistan because one of its members states was attacked (that would be US). But here's the really interesting question: why isn't NATO in Iraq? I mean, sure, a few NATO member states have troops in Iraq: the US, UK, Poland, Turkey (oops!). But the alliance won't go near it. Why? Because Iraq never attacked a NATO member state, nor did it ever threaten to, that's why. If Iraq had ever threatened the security of a member state, NATO would have had to take action, as it did in the Balkan war of the 90's, and as it is now in Afghanistan. So here's what's really funny: the simple fact that NATO has no troop presence in Iraq has always given the lie to any purported connection between the US invasion of 2003 and the attacks of 9/11.

More astonishing is the actual connection between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Candidates Clinton and Obama have focused on this connection for some time now, and this has not been lost on the Germans (nor, for that matter, on anyone in the Pentagon with a brain). And this mess is only beginning. The Canadians are sending the message that they're no longer willing to deploy to the "hot" area south of Kandahar while the Germans and other NATO members are busy polishing their helmets in uncontested territory — which is a perfect cue for a gratutious Rammstein video:

Bundeswehr - Afghanistan