It must have been opposite day on 10 August, when British anti-terrorism officials foiled a major terrorist operation. No other path of logic could possibly have led authorities to the conclusion that they needed to ban all liquids from hand baggage in the United States, and hand baggage altogether in the United Kingdom. The successful aversion of a terrorist plot seems more a confirmation that security levels prior to 10 August were sufficient, rather than a harbinger of coming disaster. After all, the pre-10 August level of security managed to avert disaster. Unlike previous (and successful) conspiracies - where later investigations demonstrated that improved passenger screening may have precluded disaster - authorities in England would still have stopped this latest plot from taking place if air travelers could still bring hand baggage on board the aircraft.

The new restrictions on air travel merely serve to benefit pharmaceutical corporations, who can now broker deals with airlines to sell overpriced lotions and lip balm on board the aircraft for those passengers who parted with their skin-care products at the security checkpoint. Perhaps this explains the airlines surprising lack of complaint over the new security measures. With musicians and businesspeople forced to find alternatives to air travel due to the restrictions on their hand baggage, one would expect the struggling airline industry to make more of a fuss about the potential loss of a major revenue source.

Furthermore, from my experience at the airport shortly after the Department of Homeland Security put the new restrictions on gels and liquids in place, the implementation of the new measures will not, in any way, prevent a determined person from bringing liquids on board. Aside from random baggage checks at the gate, which probably screen less than 10% of passengers, other passengers could easily bring liquids onto the plane.

Opposite day is such fun.