San Siro Stalemate For Italy And France

San Siro Stalemate For Italy And France
Italy 0 – 0 France

After all the pre-match drama, a goalless draw between Italy and France was something of a disappointment. Neither side could find that killer touch as a largely midfield-based match ended in a 0-0 draw at the San Siro. There were spells of fine play from each side, but the Azzurri in particular will reflect on what might have been, rather than what was. Find the report and all the reactions below.
zoom – galleria
 

Italy and France battled to a goalless draw at the San Siro, neither side showing dominance over the other in what was largely a cagey encounter.

The Azzurri enjoyed a good spell with two excellent chances in the first half, but could not make their advantage count. Only in brief spells did they show invention, and their late surge at France perhaps came a bit too late.

Meanwhile an energetic and streetwise Bleus outfit had their own opportunities and desire about them, but were debatably always the more likely of the two to end the game goalless.

The match kicked off with France coach Raymond Domenech watching from the stands, the manager serving out his UEFA-sanctioned suspension following inopportune comments in the media about the state of the Italian game.

In his place sat Pierre Mankowski, assistant coach. While Domenech did not anticipate too many problems resulting from his touchline ban, he remarked before the game that he’d briefed Mankowski on “forseeable” substitution scenarios.

Anything else was, apparently, to be covered via telepathy.

Marco Materazzi of Italy, meanwhile, also enjoyed a bird’s eye view of the pitch, although the injured defender would presumably have rather been out there playing than nursing an injury.

In “Matrix’s” place came Palermo’s Andrea Barzagli, while veteran pairing Alessandro Del Piero and ‘Pippo’ Inzaghi led the line up front as Luca Toni missed out.

France, matching their hosts’ 4-4-2, put their faith in Nicholas Anelka and Thierry Henry in attack, while the rest of the lineup was changed due to injury problems.

With Gregory Coupet out, Mikel Landreau started in goal, while William Gallas failed to regain fitness in time to take part at the back.

The first half passed without goals, Italy just about shading it on the balance of play, although France showed that they were willing to fight for the tie.

Indeed, the early moments passed in the form of a midfield battle, Claude Makelele playing the part of midfield enforcer with perhaps too much relish five minutes in as he appeared to elbow Del Piero. The Chelsea man picked up a yellow card for his troubles.

There were few chances early on, and the first clear-cut one ended in disaster for France. Bayern Munich’s Frank Ribery put in some good movement down the right to feed Nicholas Anelka in the box, only for the Bolton man to completely fluff his effort.

Italy decided to take the game to their opponents, Del Piero looking lively on the edge of the box, and the Juventus stalwart might have given his side the lead just after the half hour, had his effort been a little more vicious.

“Alex” picked up the ball from Camoranesi inside the box, but Mikael Landreau of PSG proved the equal of his rather disappointing effort.

Then came the best effort of the half, from ‘Pippo’ Inzaghi. His looping effort smacked off the crossbar to break San Siro hearts.

That could have been the start of a real period of domination for Italy, but instead France re-established their rhythm, looking fairly comfortable until the interval.

Indeed, they even found the wherewithal to test Buffon, but the Juventus stopper easily dealt with Malouda’s long-range effort.

The second half started in somewhat more lively fashion, Barzagli nearly heading home an Andrea Pirlo corner three minutes in, but Landreau got across well to save.

This was perhaps the golden period for chances, particularly for the French, Anelka nearly getting on the end of a through ball only to be denied by Buffon, and Cannavaro soon after had to be at his best to deal with a roving Ribery ball.

Italy were in danger of dropping out of the game, with Del Piero looking increasingly exhausted and isolated up front, but France could not press in this fleeting moment of advantage, and the scores stayed level heading into the hour mark.

Indeed, Thierry Henry showed the visitors’ frustrations, bringing down Cannvaro for a booking as Italy regained the momentum.

Camoranesi came off for Perrotta while, minutes later, the fruitless Inzaghi-Del Piero partnership was broken. Shakhtar Donetsk forward Cristiano Lucarelli came on for the Milanese in an attempt to revitalise a tired-looking Italian front line.

Instead, both teams appeared to slow down some what – Italy, perhaps, even moreso. Clear cut chances were at a premium and, while France showed more energy, the Italians had enough know-how at the back to keep them out, particularly the brilliant Cannavaro.

The final minutes, however, saw a reversal. Italy, perhaps touched by the urgency of the situation, began to press and show flashes of great pace. Nonetheless, they could not take advantage of the three minutes of injury time, and the tie ended goalless.

After all the hype, then, the end result was a largely even encounter, and one without too much by way of drama. While the home side arguably had the bulk of the attacking play, it is the visitors who will leave happier – and still in pole position in Group B.

Home Security 101 – The Basics Of Securing Your Home

Home Security 101 – The Basics Of Securing Your Home

 by: Jack Krohn 
First things first, the problem of home burglaries and home invasions is an ever increasing threat to all American homeowners.

In the latest year that statistics were released, 2004, the Bureau of Justice reported that:

* Nearly one out of six homes was violated by a burglar.
* Three fourths of all crime was property related.
* In nearly 90% of all burglaries, the burglar gained entry into the house or other building.

This is something to remember: property crime occurs every 3 seconds, a home burglary every 15 seconds.

That’s the bad news. The enormously good news is that almost any expert in the field will tell you that 90%-that’s right 90% of all burglaries can be prevented.

So if the odds are so good that it will happen to you and it is such a preventable event-what is it you have to do to stop the burglars?

Let’s start with the basics. There are several simple things that can be done to make your home more secure in the face of almost certain intrusion from a burglar. TIME, LIGHT, NOISE-they are the biggest enemies of burglars.

As a matter of fact, homes with a security system have far fewer break-ins than those that don’t. This is not an all inclusive list but one that if followed will certainly go a long way toward making your home more secure.

1. Take a critical look at your house from the outside. Look at your home as a burglar would. Is your house well lit maybe with motion activated spotlights? Are there hiding places near doors and windows? If you can spot a potential weakness in your home’s “look” you can bet a professional burglar can exploit it. Remember that LIGHT is a burglars’ enemy-darkness a friend.

2. What could slow down a burglar from entering your home? Simple home security devices such as locks on doors (deadbolts are best) and windows, bars, grates-items that are visible from the exterior of the house will not only act as a deterrent but slow down an intruder should he decide to try to enter. The more time it takes to break into a home, the more discouraged a burglar will become. TIME is the enemy of the burglar.

3. How noisy can you make it if someone gains entry? NOISE is also the enemy of the burglar. There are many home security alarms activated by doors or windows opening or by motion. The sound of a barking dog, real or recorded, are very effective and will scare most burglars away.

LIGHTS, NOISE AND TIME-they are the three biggest enemies of an intruder. If you implement these home security tips to fortify your house you may well avoid a lot of potential break-ins. Implement these home security tips and you will be able to sleep better in a more secure home.

To find out more about some effective home security devices check out the links below.

Jack Krohn is the #1 author of Home Security Articles in the country according to EzineArticles. He owns SECURITY SOLUTIONS a one stop resource that provides solutions and answers for all your self defense and home security problems.

A Democracy? What Have We Wrought?

A Democracy? What Have We Wrought?

 by: Scott Weldon Clark 
One of the great fallacies abroad is thinking that any regime today can lay claim to being democratic. None are. Though we say they are democratic and that they are democracies, they are actually republican government?representative democracies. This means that certain people are elected to serve the interests of the people at large. These representatives make the decisions for the people rather than the people making them. And these representatives are elected for a period of time during which period they cannot be removed except for what amount to crimes or malfeasance.

If we had real democracies, the people would make the decisions on any policy of government. It would be the people as legislators?and enforcers, by the way. But that doesn?t go far enough either. If we truly had a democracy, that is, a system of government responsive to the desires of the people, then an official would have to wear a device that would track what the people want. And when a majority is reached either to do an act or not do it, the official would have to either do it or cease doing it depending. And that would be true even down to the level of what is said or not said. If the people do not want a particular official to use a particular word, the will of the people would rule. Vox populi, vox dei. The wishes of the people are the only thing that matters.

Government, however, would not be possible if this were the case even though now this is much more feasible to do. (Some people are advocating just this type of thing by the way. And all this concern about polls to augur by is much of the same thing.) No treaty could be negotiated, nor legislation could ever be passed and no criminal could ever be apprehended, tried and convicted, if this were the case. It would be government by committee and that committee would be the committee of the whole people. And, pardon the expression, it would be a rabble.

As it is, representatives are elected for a term of years and the people are not allowed in to express their wishes except for every 2 years, 4 years, or 6 years depending. This allows an insulation from the people that is intended to create a space for the representative to act in the common good. This means that the common good should be the interest. The people will vote on it later by voting on the representative. By that time, however, passions may have cooled, the result may be clearer or the argument made might have a better chance of carrying the day. The point is that sometimes the people demand what is not good for them, or they sometimes demand what is not good for a sizeable minority of people. The mob is still a distinct possibility.

Is this elitist? Well, yes. But the elitism was to have been moderated by an intelligent people, a people who were involved and understood the issues and went to a meeting from time to time on some problem of government or society. But even so this is the form of government we have and it has worked very well over the past centuries. And it is only when the public good is not the primary focus of government that we have had problems.

Usually, the people arguing for this kind of thing argue this way because they think they have a greater chance of getting power by yoking themselves to the people. Wherever the people go, they go?and they will swear they were there first. But it is demagoguery, literally. And it can create the likes of a Hugo Chavez. And this sort of reasoning can also form the basis for a regime like Vladimir Putin?s in Russia. (Protect me and give me some stability and we will forgive your use and possibly abuse of power. But that argument though is for another time.)

So is a policy something the people want or isn?t it. Maybe it is or it isn?t but that ought not be the issue–whether it is good or bad for the country ought to be the focus of attention. And, if it is good, a statesman, as opposed to a politician, would bring the people along with him?or her.

Taking Political Discussions Seriously

Taking Political Discussions Seriously

by: Cynthia Bates

Politics seems to be the hot topic of discussion these days, and many innocent conversations turn into screaming matches with neither party being able to get a word in edgewise. It is well known that the country is divided on many political topics, and people seem to feel stronger about certain issues than ever before. Many people engage in political discussions for the express purpose of changing another person’s mind, but often tempers flare and no one leaves the conversation having learned anything. There is a difference in taking a political discussion seriously and simply having a heated argument with someone.

The general definition of the word discussion is to exchange ideas. Quite often so-called political discussions couldn’t be further from this definition. When people feel very strongly about a subject they often refuse to see another person’s point of view, let alone listen to them. If you feel that someone you know could learn something from you about politics keep in mind you could probably learn something from them as well.

To take a political discussion seriously you must be willing to listen, not only speak. Understand that part of what makes up a person’s feelings and opinions is their experiences. Since you certainly haven’t had the same experiences as someone else you can’t expect to see eye to eye on everything. Discussions require each party to allow the other to speak in turn and have a chance to say their piece.

When engaging in a political discussion with someone who holds differing opinions, be prepared to learn if you expect them to. No one likes to be told they are wrong, and if you really want someone to see where you’re coming from you need to pay them the same respect. Name calling and general rudeness will get you nowhere, and your civil political discussion will soon turn into an argument.

Always keep your cool during a discussion. If you aren’t willing to listen to the other person, then perhaps you shouldn’t bother trying to engage them. Starting discussions simply to rile the other party or insult them is both juvenile and lacks any constructive purpose. The other party probably feels as strongly about certain issues as you do, so don’t expect them to concede to your points right away. A good political discussion may have no outcome other than an opportunity to understand someone else’s view points and why they hold them.

It is important to engage in civil political discussions (www.argufy.com), even if you feel you’re not getting anywhere in terms of changing someone else’s mind. We all live in this country together, and no matter what party is currently in power and it is important to be sympathetic to all our fellow country people.

Global Warming

Global Warming

 by: Daniel J. M. Galpin 
This issue is receiving much attention in the news with many declaring the end of the earth as we know it and insisting that we take immediate action or it will be too late. They enlisted many entertainment professionals to aid in their declaration, but is it fact or fiction? One thing is curtain, haste makes waste.

I raise this question for many reasons. One being that while many scientist claim it is fact, many others claim it is not. One side says if you listen to real scientist, you will see that they say it’s true, but the other side claims to have real scientists too. Apparently real scientist are in disagreement, thus I repeat, haste makes waste. Secondly, 20 years ago scientists were claiming the next ice age and that we must be ready and 15 years before that they warned of global warming and prior to that the next ice age. Thus can we really trust those groups currently claiming global warming? Thirdly, those same scientist claim that evolution is how we all got here and they claim it to be science, yet true science is defined by something that is testable, observable and repeatable. Neither evolution or creation, for that matter, fall into the definition of science. Both are merely beliefs of how we got here. Beliefs, while good intentions are not science! Therefore can the scientists be trusted to evaluate climate conditions? And if the beliefs of evolution is true, why would we be fighting the next step? Again, haste makes waste.

I will concede to the fact that weather conditions appear to be changing. We are having hotter days and colder days. We are having cold when it should be hot and hot when it should be cold. The past two winters where I live have been much warmer than many before them and this summer seems to be cooler. The climate patterns we are accustomed to seem to be changing. In addition, frequency and intensity of natural disasters seem to be growing. However, is that due to human activity or is there another possible answer?

I propose just as there is a long standing debate regarding our beginnings: Evolution Vs. Creation, there is also another possible explanation for the climate changing conditions. Those that claim global warming, warn that the end is near, if we don’t do something soon. While I disagree about their conclusions regarding what is causing climate change, I do agree, the end may be near. The most accurate history book available to the human race also declares meteorological disasters will increase towards the end of time as we know it. The Bible warns they are like a woman’s birthing pains. Thus, disasters will increase.

I leave this as a second possible cause for our planets change in climate. While we can see the changes taking place and observe them, compare them to past records and thus conclude such change is occurring, we merely believe and cannot prove that humans are responsible. This would require us to test, observe and repeat the past actions of our ancestors and that is something we can not do. I place my belief in a trusted source, the most accurate history book in history, the Bible. I do believe we need to prepare for the end, although the end that is coming is unavoidable and certain. Humankind cannot fix it. We will have to endure it and either accept or reject the one that is causing it: the Lord and Savior of all humanity, Jesus Christ.