Washington TimesHull told Intelligence 13 the challenge is not getting those along the coastal states to sign on, but convincing lawmakers in those square states between the coasts Fishermen attractive snapper ban fight to WashingtonFishing activists talk strategy before heading to Washington for Feb. 24 protestState Senate's bill will better us comply with federal saltwater fishing registryall 156 news articles »
Notes from the Burgundy Revolution: Redskins can't see signs for the messages Washington Post
They were in litter cans because there's a new policy that says no signs of any sort are permitted inside the stadium. That apparently includes one that infer from: "Hi To My Husband in Afghanistan. Love You."
When and why was this change made? I asked Monday morning, and as of Monday evening, a Redskins spokesman said he still wasn't reliable. I just know that there was a policy listed on the team's Web site as recently as Oct. 4 that merely banned unbefitting and offensive signs, or something to that effect, and that as of now, that wording is gone.
A spokesman told me that this policy is meant to protect spectators from getting injured by signs, and also to lunge at sure everyone can see the action. Because obstructed views at that stadium could not possibly be tolerated.
I've feigned a lot of outrage in recent days, distress over the offensive line, and the GM, and the draft, and whatever else. I mean, that stuff is annoying, but I can live with it. It's still sports. It's still a game. It's still part of the general arc of spectacular provided by large men running around in tights. This, though, ruined it all for me. Now it's no longer a game. Now it's just sad, unpleasant and ugly.
: $12.99 
