The official website for Spain's European Union presidency was briefly hacked this morning by an unidentified hacker who posted a smiling picture of British comedian Rowan Atkinson's famous character Mr. Bean. Apparently the resemblance of Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Maria Zapatero to the bumbling character has been a running joke in Spain for years. Never thought of it before but I can see it. 

If anything good has come from the Flight 253 terror attack -- in which a 23-year-old Nigerian man attempted to detonate an explosive on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day -- it has been the tale of the Flying Dutchman.

Jasper Schuringa,  a 32-year-old Dutch filmmaker, heard a popping sound and saw smoke emanating from the would-be terrorist's pants. He leaped to the rescue, jumping over other passengers to wrestle Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and put out the fire on his pants, burning his bare hands in the process. (Abdulmutallab had hidden a plastic explosive in his underwear.) Schuringa then restrained Abdulmutallab in a headlock and helped the stewards handcuff him in first class. Needless to say, the tabloids are in love. 

And the story underscores the point that, in the words of security expert Bruce Schneier, "Only two things have made flying safer [since 9/11]: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers."

Photo from Facebook

In the absence of real progress to report, news coverage of the ongoing U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen has lately begun to focus on the protestors.

Here is what we know: There are a lot of them (estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000). They've got some nifty signs and face paint (slogans include: "Planet not profit" and "There is no Planet B"). They've come from around the globe. And several hundred have been thrown in jail.

What we don't know is: What do they want?

For all the stories I've lately read about whether the protests were generally peaceful, whether the anarchists were a fringe minority, or whether jail time for anyone was warranted, I'm still a bit hazy on the larger point.

Where have all the good protestors - and message disciplinarians - gone?

Once upon a time, there was a grand tradition of protestors channeling their energies toward some clearly defined goal. I've written about this before for the Washington Monthly, so please excuse the zeal for history. But here's a quick run-down of the golden age of American protests:

The very first protest march on Washington, DC took place in the midst of an economic depression in 1894 when populist leader Joseph Coxey led an army of 500 jobless men to the Capitol steps to demand a public works program that would provide jobs for the unemployed.

Two decades later, in what must have been the first counter-inaugural protest, 28-year-old Alice Paul organized 8,000 women wearing white to march down Pennsylvania Avenue a day before Woodrow Wilson's inauguration. The women were there to lobby for women's suffrage, a demonstration that was rewarded by the passage a few years later of a constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote.

In 1941, the mere threat of a public protest was enough to force political change: When A. Philip Randolph, leader of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, announced plans for a march on Washington, Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order banning discrimination in defense industry and federal jobs.

And the granddaddy of all protests, the March on Washington in 1963, drew a quarter million people to the foot of the Lincoln Memorial to demand voting protections and desegregation of public spaces; shortly thereafter, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

You get the point. In each of these cases, a specific goal was identified; people were rallied behind the cause; a plan was devised; and often, as in the case of the women's suffrage and civil rights marches, a button-up dress code was enforced. The objective was for the message to be taken seriously. Everyone was more or less on the same page, and there was a clear benchmark for success.

Fast-forward to Copenhagen. Not only are the protestors' intentions and goals scrambled, but reporters have even stopped asking about them. It's no longer expected that protestors should have much purpose beyond self-expression. Which is a shame.

If today's tens of thousands of Copenhagen protestors wanted their efforts to amount to more than color for reporters' stories, they would do well to recognize the real reason why the marches of yesteryear are still remembered. It wasn't just about the messengers showing up; it was about the message - and a clear goal.

Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

While most of the media coverage regarding Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's trip to the United States has looked east, to Turkey's burgeoning relationship with Syria and Iran, the real breaking news may concern Turkey's faltering relationship with the European Union.

In a speech at SAIS on Monday, Erdogan argued that Turkey's accession is being followed closely by the Islamic world, as a sign of hope that old cultural divisions can finally be bridged. However, he attacked proposals to offer Turkey a "privileged position" with the EU instead of outright membership, which German Chancellor Angela Merkel had previously supported. Instead of making up new classifications of countries midway through the process, he said that those who did not support Turkey's accession to "just come out and say it."

In a meeting with Erdogan's senior foreign policy advisor Ibrahim Kalin and Suat Kiniklioglu, the spokesman for the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Turkish Parliament, it was clear that Turkish frustrations run even deeper than Erdogan had let on. Kiniklioglu let it be known that his patience with the Europeans had run out, and that he was "tired of being lectured by French senators." According to him, European foot-dragging on Turkey's accession had little to do with the lack of progress on the reforms called for in the accession process, but rather "the identity issue" - Europe is simply leery to let an overwhelmingly Muslim nation into its club.

While Erdogan and his advisors all maintained that Turkey's decision to push for EU accession is still a "major strategic choice" of the country, frustration is building - and Turkey is not keen to remain in limbo on this issue forever. The Turks are trying to sell their admission into the EU by emphasizing how their large population and steady economic growth, not to mention their strategic location, could revitalize Europe's role in international affairs. They are discouraged that this pitch seems to be greeted in Europe with a shrug. Kiniklioglu specifically pointed to the appointment of Herman Van Rompuy as president of the European Council. "What does this tell you about the EU?" he asked rhetorically, that Europe would select a politician not well-known throughout Europe - "or even, from what I've heard, among Belgians?"

Woven into all of this Europe-bashing was praise for the Obama administration's ability to adapt quickly to the changing dynamics of Turkish politics. This could be explained as a simple courtesy visiting diplomats bestow on the host country, but there is good reason to believe it is sincere: Obama gave a gracious speech in the Turkish Parliament soon after his inauguration, which unambiguously declared Turkey a part of Europe, and his openness to negotiating with dirty regimes is in line with the Turkish outlook. The trip was certainly not all happy talks and hugs (to wit: the startling resignation of Turkey's ambassador), but Obama should look closely at leveraging his good reputation with the Turks, and with the Europeans, into patching up this failing relationship.

Research published in the British Medical Journal says there is no public evidence that Tamiflu reduces complications associated with influenza. Researchers attempting to review data about the Roche produced drug -- dubbed "our best line of defence" against swine flu by the British health secretary -- found the Swiss laboratory wouldn't permit public access to the studies on the drugs.

Tamiflu might shorten influenza suffering by a day or so they said, based on information in the public domain, but it's not clear that chances of serious complications, like pneumonia, would be affected by Tamiflu. Such meager results mean it might not be worth confronting the side-effects, which include: "insomnia, nausea, bad dreams, abdominal pain, headache and a rare neuropsychiatric disease that caused some users to attempt to harm themselves."

This is understandably a problem for the governments around the world who have stockpiled huge quantities of the drug to prescribe for H1N1, contributing to Roche's estimated $2.65 billion in revenues this year from Tamiflu. In a very entertaining, but not too enlightening analogy, a Brit scientist tried to explain the situation policy makers now find themselves in when deciding to use the drug:

But I suppose that once you've gone and bought lots of doses, then it's a bit like the situation with gun control in the US. If you have a gun in the house, it is much easier to use it. But it does not mean it's the right thing to do."

ANTONIO SCORZA/AFP/Getty Images

The Holy See apparently has no barriers to the types of jams it rocks. The Vatican's MySpace playlist includes artists such as the rock band Muse, the folksy Fleet Foxes and the thuggish ruggish beats of the late, great Tupac Shakur. The Vatican joined figures such as Lady Gaga and R. Kelly in publishing their "celebrity" playlist, part of the new MySpace Music initiative.

The ‘Pac song included is "Changes," which is about the struggles of poor, African-American, urban-dwellers; and is probably more suitable for a pious audience than, say, "Hit ‘em up."

Not to dwell on the outlier issue, but the Vatican is advertising the fact that it listens to songs glorifying the life of Black Power advocate Huey P. Newton, and this is extraordinary. Most media outlets are making much ado about the graphic nature of many Tupac lyrics, but his underlying message of relief for the poor and suffering seems to fit. The 12-song playlist is rounded out by songs you would expect men of the cloth to listen to; Mozart and some other classical music.    

As far as the infallible-one's affinity for Fleet Foxes, one need not look farther than the striking resemblance of front man Robin Pecknold to, well... you get the point.

Frank Micelotta/Getty Images

Sicilian Mafioso turned snitch Gaspare Spatuzza needs to re-watch a pivotal scene from Goodfellas. While testifying against Marcello Dell'Utri, an Italian politican, Spatuzza dropped a dime on Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for having ties to the Mafia. Spatuzza is serving life in prison for two murders.

Dell'Utri was earlier convicted of Mafia associations and sentenced to nine years in jail, something he is now appealing. He was a co-founder of Berlusconi's political party, Forza Italia and a senior advisor to the prime minister. As is common for political heavyweights in Italy, Dell'Utri hasn't served any jail time, despite convictions.  

Spatuzza told his story from behind a screen in the courtroom, testifying that his former employer, mob boss Guiseppe Graviano used to brag about how close he was with Berlusconi in the 1990s.

"Two names were mentioned, one of them was Berlusconi's," he said. "Graviano told me that thanks to the seriousness of these people, we had the country in our hands."

A Berlusconi spokesman denied the allegations, saying the Mafia was trying to harm the prime minister's credibility because of his recent crackdown on organized crime. Dell'Utri thinks Berlusconi has bigger things to worry about.

"Of course Berlusconi is completely calm about it too - he's more afraid of his wife than Spatuzza," he said, referring to Berlusconi's pending divorce after he allegedly pulled a Tiger Woods.

The mounting pressure against Berlusconi was evident in Saturday's rally in which tens of thousands came together in Rome calling on the prime minister to resign.

VINCENZO PINTO/AFP/Getty Images

Referring to the United States's NATO partners, President Obama last night asked, "that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead." A conference will be held in London in January to discuss international contributions to the effort.

NATO Chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen promised 5,000 troops, but it's a little unclear where he's going to get them:

Reacting to Obama's call for more help, a Polish official said the government will likely send 600 combat-ready reinforcements, mainly for patrolling and training, to beef up its existing 2,000-strong contingent.

Albania pledged to increase its 250-member unit by 85 troops, army trainers and medical workers, Prime Minister Sali Berisha said.

Spain's El Pais daily said the defense ministry was considering adding 200 soldiers to its 1,000 contingent. Italy declared it would do its part and Finland confirmed that it had been asked to consider sending more troops and would do so next week. [...]

Britain announced before Obama's speech it is sending 500 more troops to Afghanistan, bringing its numbers there to 10,000.

France and Germany are holding off on any troop decision until an international conference in January, though French President Nicolas Sarkozy has previously pledged that he "won't send an additional soldier."

The other big question is the Netherlands, whose parliament voted for a non-binding resolution in favor of withdrawal when the Dutch mission ends next August. If the Dutch government follows through and pulls out its 2,160 troops, that would more than negate the 1,385 troops already pledged by Britain, Spain, Poland and Albania. Canada has already passed a withdrawal plan for 2011 as well and seems unlikely to add more troops. 

Even in a best-case scenario in which the Dutch keep current troop levels and the countries mentioned are able to follow through through on their commitments, NATO will still need get more than 3,500 troops from the Italians, the Australians, the deeply ambivalent Germans and a hodge-podge of smaller nations, none of whom currently have more than 1,000 troops in the country. 

It doesn't seem too likely. 

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The concensus on this weekend's Swiss minaret ban seems to be that it "heralds a new surge in populist, anti-immigrant sentiment," and contradicts Switzerland's images as "a place where peace, democracy and human rights are valued above all else." There are a few problems with this narrative.

First, the "famously tolerant" Swiss didn't just suddenly become paranoid xenophobes last weekend. The Swiss People's Party, the primary sponsors of this referendum, succeeding in essentially banning non-European unskilled immigration drastically increasing requirements for asylum speakers in through a referendum in 2006 and won a national election the following year on the strength of highly enlightened policy ideas like this one.

Second, despite the international shock and hand-wringing over the Swiss vote, I'm not sure that citizens of other Western countries would vote that differently if given the chance. The German media is already ruminating about this question. More than anything, the Swiss decision made me think about the survey data collected in Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson's recent FP piece, written in the wake of the Ft. Hood shooting:

According to a 2006 Gallup poll, a third of Americans admire "nothing" about the Muslim world. Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslims. A July 2007 Newsweek survey indicated that 46 percent of Americans think that the United States is accepting too many Muslim immigrants, 32 percent consider American Muslims less loyal to the United States than they are to Islam, 28 percent believe that the Koran condones violence, 41 percent are convinced that Islamic culture "glorifies suicide," 54 percent are "worried" about Islamic jihadists in the U.S., and 52 percent support FBI surveillance of mosques.

In light of these attitudes -- and ignoring whether the courts would strike such a law down as unconstitutional -- is it absurd to think that a well-organized, well-funded ballot initiative to ban minarets would have a chance of passing in many U.S. states?

I don't mean to suggest that Americans are either more or less anti-Islamic or xenophobic than the Swiss, but I do think there's someting to Tyler Cowen's argument that, "Sooner or later an open referendum process will get even a very smart, well-educated country into trouble."

SEBASTIEN BOZON/AFP/Getty Images

It now seems close to certain that Herman Van Rompuy, the prime minister of Belgium, will be EU president, and Catherine Ashton, currently the EU trade commissioner and the former leader of the British House of Lords, will be foreign-policy czar.

The picks have a symmetry thought necessary in Europe: Rompuy and Ashton are male and female, from a small country and a large one, conservative and liberal.

They are also expected and surprising. Rompuy has for weeks been considered a frontrunner for president. Ashton -- decently known in Britain and on the continent, but barely known elsewhere -- is something of a surprise. The BBC and other outlets report that up until the very end of negotiations, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown pushed for former PM Tony Blair to win the top spot. Germany and other big continental countries advocated for Rompuy, and won; Brown and social-democrats then pushed Ashton through.

Ultimately, Ashton is the more interesting pick. I believe the foreign-policy gig will end up being the vastly more influential one -- Ashton will control thousands of civil servants and a large budget, and will have powers to set policy priorities for the EU. It is unclear just what Rompuy's staffing and responsibilities will be.

But is Ashton qualified enough? Prominent enough? And might any countries object? She has an important job as trade commissioner, but has only been in it for a year. We'll have answers to those questions -- as well as to how transformative these positions might be -- when she and Rompuy take office next month.

Matt Yglesias has some good commentary on the new team and the importance these positions might have, as well as a useful explanation of Ashton's formal title (she is known as Lady Ashton, Baroness of Upholland -- not because she inherited a barony, but because she won an honorific title when she joined the House of Lords). And we'll post any more interesting updates here.

Getty Images

British ambassador to the United States Sir Nigel Sheinwald usually writes about climate change policy and the difficulties in Afghanistan on his blog, but today he chose to write about bloodsucking vampires.

It seems, as Sheinwald accurately points out, the Brits export a considerable amount of vampires to Hollywood. Robert Pattinson, Stephen Moyer, Kate Beckinsale, Gary Oldman, and Christopher Lee are all British, and all portrayed the undead at some point in their career.

The final paragraph from Sheinwald's piece shows his mastery of the art of pun, although the entire thing is worth reading.

So vampires aside, there is nothing undead about the vibrancy of the UK's cultural and media life. And am I confident of its continued transatlantic success?  The "stakes" may be high, but you may most definitely "Count" on it!   

A "scurrilous idea" -- better known as the Tobin tax, a levy on foreign-exchange transactions -- seems to be taking on a life of its own.

This week U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio is expected to propose a tax on all financial transactions (like stock purchases -- excluding those connected to health, education, and pensions). The idea of funding job creation in this way has the backing of a variety of groups, including the NAACP, AFL-CIO, and the National Council of La Raza.

Although the idea of a financial transactions tax has been floating around since Nobel economics prize winner James Tobin proposed it in the 1970s (to stabilize currencies), it has gained recent traction since Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown brought it up at a meeting of G20 finance ministers meeting earlier this month. He discussed using some form of a tax on all financial transactions, to stabilize whole markets.

Much of the debate focuses on justice, the idea seems to be to tax the bad guys and use the money for any number of just causes. It's hard to argue with that sort of logic. As Brown pointed out, the banks should have to bear some of the costs of the massive bailouts they received.

It cannot be acceptable that the benefits of success in this sector are reaped by the few but the costs of its failure are borne by all of us."

At the request of the G-20, the IMF is preparing a report on the tax -- despite opposition by IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Opponents avoid philosophy and stick to economics, arguing that countries instituting such levies might risk pushing financial operations into friendlier markets and that it would be technically difficult to implement.

In the meantime, Brazil has unilaterally implemented a tax on currency transactions, intended to stabilize the real by reducing speculation.

Jonathan Ernst/Getty Images

"Some people get the giggles after using cannabis -- you may laugh at the most random things" cautions "FRANK," the UK's anti-drug website. Despite declining drug use in the country, in January the British government changed marijuana's classification from a "Class C" to a "Class B" drug; possession now carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, while dealing can get you 14 years in jail.

Professor David Nutt, formerly a member of the UK's independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, was fired for publicly disputing the decision; five other members of the 31-person Council have since resigned in protest of the politically-motivated firing. In a lecture (later published), Nutt argued that the use of illicit drugs like marijuana and ecstasy poses less severe health risks than the use of alcohol or tobacco. Nutt has also equated the dangers of ecstasy use and the risks of horseback riding.

Nutt's firing and the subsequent resignations have caused quite a political row, with politicians and scientists making pointed attacks on home secretary Alan Johnson, who gave Nutt the axe. "Your leader on drugs policy is long on righteous indignation but short on logic" wrote Johnson in a defensive letter published in The Guardian.

Nutt fired back in a column published in The Telegraph, writing, "Some politicians find it easier to ignore the evidence, and pander to public prejudice instead."

Photo: SCOTT BARBOUR/Getty Images

At the end of his New York Times column today, Nick Kristof offers a, frankly, adorable apology to the country of Slovenia.

In several columns, I've noted indignantly that we have worse health statistics than Slovenia. For example, I noted that an American child is twice as likely to die in its first year as a Slovenian child. The tone -- worse than Slovenia! -- gravely offended Slovenians. They resent having their fine universal health coverage compared with the notoriously dysfunctional American system.

As far as I can tell, every Slovenian has written to me. Twice. So, to all you Slovenians, I apologize profusely for the invidious comparison of our health systems. Yet I still don't see anything wrong with us Americans aspiring for health care every bit as good as yours.

So true! And, we noted in FP's office, Slovenia is a total Central European jewel: beautiful, prosperous, calm, safe, wealthy, and Mediterranean (tucked between Italy and Croatia, with access to the ocean and the Alps) -- plus, apparently, with universal health care to boot.

Flickr user Ah_Zut