Let Me Be Brief

The eyes of the world are on Detroit as the arraignment of the Christmas Day terrorist attacker gets underway. As we all know by now, the young Nigerian attempted to blow up Northwest flight 253 en route to Detroit by packing chemicals into his underwear that would be used to set off an explosion. He is being indicted on charges that include using "weapons of mass destruction" and attempted murder. In short, he had WMDs in his BVDs. Thus, he has been dubbed the "Underwear Bomber."

From a practical perspective, I implore the media, can we PLEASE call him something other than the "Underwear Bomber?" I understand, the guy from a couple of years ago became known as the "Shoe Bomber" but the "Underwear Bomber" and photos of his blown out underwear in the paper and on the news keep conjuring up images of dirty underwear and burnt testicles that I don't want to think about. How about the "Boxer Bomber" or "Grundy Grenader?" Somehow, those undergarment terms don't sound as disgusting.

What's in a name? Everything. After all, wasn't there a conscious effort to change the name of the Swine Flu to the H1N1 Flu because it was giving pigs and the pork industry a bad rap? Can you imagine when word got out that pictures of this guy's underwear were being published for all the world to see? I'm sure the people at Hanes and Fruit of the Loom were holding their breath and saying "Please, please, please....don't let it be one of ours." What a marketing nightmare that would be to have to recover from. Yeah, it would be free publicity, but certainly nothing like the free publicity the outer wear company is receiving from using President Obama's photo in their Times Square advertisement. They say there is no such thing as bad publicity, but I think Tiger Woods and the boxer brand name of the "Underwear Bomber" would beg to differ.