People like you are the reason a once neutral word is now percieved negatively by people who don't know better. Congratulations, you are making the world a worse place, I hope you feel good about yourself.

The term "Redskins" was not consciously used to oppress Native Americans, that's the point. There were plenty of much nastier terms. The history of white people killing natives and stealing their land is already horrible, but lying about the past, even in a good cause, is still lying. Read Ives Goddard's study of…

Your example fails because your cause isn't helping anyone, it is only hurting people. Opponents of the name "Redskins" are promoting linguistic ignorance, stirring up racial enmity for no reason, and wiping yet another symbol of Native Americans out of our culture. No Native Americans gain anything from the name…

"Niggers" is a derogatory racial slur and has been for as long as anyone can remember. "Redskins" was not a racial slur until some media people looking for attention decided it should be. I'm getting tired of ignorant 20-somethings trying to dictate language usage based on nothing but their own vague feelings.

Except, of course, it is not a "racial slur" in any meaningful way. It was not derogatory originall, just descriptive, and no one has used it to refer to Native Americans in at least 50 years. I suppose you consider the words "hooligan" or "barbarian" to be racially insensitive as well.

"Redskins" was never a term used to oppress people, that is the point. Andrew Johnson, and all the genocidal Native American haters never used that term when they were trying to be hateful. You have chosen to embrace historical ignorance and then wrap yourself in a flag of "social justice." What a hypocrite.

Please explain how the name "Redskins" is a social issue. First explain how naming a football team Redskins made life for Native Americans worse in this country, and then explain how changing the name will make anything better. We have countless important social issues in this country, the naming of sports teams is…

Mary Tyler Moore and Newhart were pretty consistent as far as I remember, and characters did change and grow on MTM, which was one reason that show stood out so much at the time.

"Drive Shaft" is not a great band name - but it strikes me as at least plausible. Especially for the kind of hacky, hit-driven wannabe Oasis clones the band was supposed to be. It's no worse, stripped of context, than "Pearl Jam" or "Soundgarden".

George Harrison's most well known solo song is "My Sweet Lord". Not technically a cover, but since he basically stole the melody of the Ronnie Mack 1963 hit "He's So Fine", that song might count as well.

Clearly fictional though. Imagine, a country where ice hockey is the national sport, health care is free, and people watch curling on TV! Makes Westeros seem realistic.

If Firefly had had a second season, the first would now seem uneven in retrospect. Oh well. But you're right - even going back to Star Trek:TOS or TNG, the second seasons were better than the first.

Sabbath started in 1969, 6 years later than the Stones. That's my point - the best bands from the 60s had a true creative life of 5-15 years. Since the Stones and the Who both had a decent 15 year run, it is hard to say they "blew it".

Obviously.

Better examples, but they are obviously not bands.

We are talking about bands and you are throwing out individuals, not the same game. Kraftwerk, ok. Yes - you must be high, they were making commercial sell out musci in the 80s just like the Stones and Who were. "Owner of a Lonely Heart"? I'll take "Start Me Up" or "You Better You Bet" over that.

Neither the Rolling Stones nor the Who "blew it". Just compare them to their peers. Is there any band who was at the top of their game in 1969-1971 who was still producing exciting relevant music by the 1980s? Not the Beatles, not Zeppelin, not the Byrds, not Clapton. Not even the Velvets.

They don't. They are a small footnote in rock history - not really worth getting too excited about positively or negatively.

While the Rolling Stones pretty much started to shit the bed after or during "Goatshead Soup", "A Bigger Bang" is actually good. It is a bluesy bar rock album with gritty guitar work and attitude, even if Mick would rather shout lyrics than sing them. I suspect a lot of Stones detractors have never listened to that…

If you read between the lines, I think what happened to the Stones is that Mick and Keith at some point in the 1970s stopped being friends, and stopped being able to work together creatively. Keith's drug use may have actually been the cause of that rift.