Le Violence au Parc des Princes: Un problème récurrent pour le PSG

Avec le résultat d'une victoire 1-0 contre les amateurs de Quevilly en demi-finales de la Coupe de France, le Paris Saint-Germain peut-être a une chance de sauver encore une fois une saison qu'il pourrait oublier (au temps d'écrire, le PSG est au 11ieme place de Ligue 1). Bien que certains résultats aux finales de la Coupe de France ou de la Coupe de la Ligue française ont étés de première force pour le club parisien, la classement à la fin de la saison a été en mauvaise forme. 2004-2005 et 2005-2006, neuvième place. 2006-2007, quinzième. 2007-2008, seizième. Ces classements vont aussi avec des triomphes de 2004 et 2006 en la Coupe de France (finaliste en 2008 et 2003) et 2008 en la Coupe de la Ligue. Mais ce que les supporteurs veulent proprement dit est le championnat.

Le PSG est le seul club de football d'Île-de-France à jouer en Ligue 1 et recueille, selon un sondage Ifop (Institut français d'opinion publique), 11% des suffrages pour savoir qui est-ce que le club de football le plus préférés des français (l'Olympique de Marseille est le seul club qui a reçu plus, avec 20%). Ayant tant de supporteurs et n'ayant gagné le trophée du championnat depuis 1994 fait de frustration au Parc des Princes.

Dans les dernières quelques années, le problème du racisme et des incidents violents aux matchs de foot en France est grandi, avec plusieurs d'exemples. Mais le centre du problème se trouve à Paris. Il est bien connu qu'il y a des sections et des supporteurs du PSG qui sont et qui avaient étés toujours racistes. Ces sections ne veulent pas rien que de venir au stade et de faire connu leurs convictions désagréables et effrayantes. Les principales accusées s'appellent le Kop of Boulogne.

L'action le plus récent du Kop démontre ce qu'il peux accomplir: Le 28 février, 2010, un supporteur du club parisien est grièvement blessé à la tête et au visage, lors du match PSG-Marseille, et puis est évacué vers l'hôpital en un état critique, où il meurt. 19 supporteurs du PSG sont déférés au parquet.

Incident violent entre les supporteurs parisens lors du match PSG-OM

Un incident plus choquant est du 24 novembre, 2006 lors d'un match entre le PSG et l'Hapoël Tel-Aviv d'Israël. Âpres la défaite des parisiens 4-2, un des supporteurs du PSG est poursuivi par certains des supporteurs antisémites des Boulogne Boys (appartient du Kop of Boulogne). Un policier a tué le partisan du PSG en tirant deux coups de feu. Deux personnes des Boys aussi ont été touchées.

Ces deux incidents de violence ne sont pas tous que les racistes et antisémites de certains parts de supporteurs du PSG a fait dans l'histoire du club. Pour éluder un cas de violence dans le futur, non seulement pour le PSG mais aussi pour le football français, il faut agir en France pour des changements aux matchs de foot. Il ne faut pas que dissoudre le PSG, comme Christophe Barbier de l'Express dit, et l'arborant d'un brassard avec les mots « Un parc sans violence » est un début dans la juste direction. Ce pourrait être que le PSG, s'ils ont des incidences violents dans le future, jouera les prochain nombres des matchs avec un stade sans supporteurs. Il faut que éliminer le racisme au Parc des Princes, et si ça signifie que le Kop of Boulogne est annulé, c'est bon pour le football parisien et français.

The Dangers of Being the Party of No: What the GOP can Learn from Star Wars

In the fictional universe of Star Wars, the battle between good and evil takes quite the prominent role. The portrayal of this battle is pretty clearly exhibited, what with the naming of the two sides of the force being “light” and “dark”. Those who use the dark side of the force, generally speaking, draw upon their raw emotions, such as pride, hate, anger, and passion, to gain and use power over others. In contrast, the wielders of the light side rely upon more positive aspects of humanity, such as reason, compassion, honesty, and mercy. Though this entire concept of “the force” was created by George Lucas, its ideas can be used for kinds of things. One arena in which the principles of Star Wars can and should be applied is politics, specifically American politics.

It has become increasingly clearer over the past several months, ever since it became obvious that Barack Obama had a great chance at becoming the next president, that the opposition party has begun using more and more often the type of tactics and strategies that you could associate with the dark side of the force, if it existed. There are so many examples of this that it would be a bit impossible to show them all, but here are some:

• casting Barack Obama as a “terrorist”

• frequent assertions that the President is a socialist, a Marxist, or an Arab sleeper agent
  

• claiming that health care reform would create “death panels”, or “kill Grandma”, or even be “Armageddon”

• calling the President the “anti-Christ”

• equating gay marriage to legalizing incest

• proclaiming the President hates America and is purposefully trying to ruin it

• indulging in wild, unfounded, completely untrue conspiracy theories despite overwhelming evidence against such claims

The list could go on (and on, and on, and on) but the general idea gets through. The GOP, and the conservative right-wing that affiliates with the Republican Party, is using fear as a tactic to gain political influence and power at the expense of their opponents. By doing so, they are abandoning reason, logic, and clear, empirical evidence solely to advance their own agenda at the expense of the good of the people for whom they are supposed to be working.

Could this man really be the Anti-Christ?

Republicans and conservatives who are going along with these tactics, not to mention embracing them (looking at you, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin) should take some advice from Jedi Master Yoda, whose words of wisdom ring true, even in this galaxy:

Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

The truth of what Yoda said can already be seen. The GOP has played on people's most basic, deeply-held, instinctual fear of things that are not like them (Barack Obama is un-American; Barack Obama is a foreigner; Barack Obama is a socialist; Barack Obama is a black man; etc). This, in turn, has helped create such an entity as the so-called Tea Party, whose members are, as we are constantly reminded, very angry.

The Tea Party, who has noble intentions, no doubt, also seems to have attracted a bit of a fringe group, who aren't ashamed to resort to racist overtones or threats. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate. The GOP's use of fear to cow citizens into falsely believing lies and slander may produce the desired effect of gaining votes in future elections, but it could also possibly have a negative aspect of alienating those who are turned off by the constant rhetoric and insane ramblings. As it is, the amount of people hailing allegiance to the Republican Party lags quite a bit behind that of the Democrats. With this type of strategy, giving up reason for madness, the GOP becomes more and more a fringe party with radical beliefs and supporters, which will eventually lead to its downfall as a major player on the American political scene.

The GOP could learn a lot from Yoda

Anakin Skywalker was once a great Jedi knight, upholding the virtues of the light side of the force as he righted wrongs and performed the morally correct action throughout the galaxy. However, his pride and passion got in the way of this, ultimately leading him down the path to the dark side, and with it, led directly to his own destruction. The Republican Party stands at a precipice: they can renounce the tactics of fear and hate, and return to a stature of prominence and honor, or continue with the route they've chosen to go down since Barack Obama entered the scene, which will sooner or later result in the opposite of what they are attempting to achieve. Though they may be loud, they do not have right on their side, and their refusal to use logic, facts, or reason can only lead to bad things. Fear, hate, and anger may work in the short term, but the use of such tactics can only take one so far.

What is the Tea Party?

The so-called "Tea Party" movement has sprung up and risen in the past couple of months. Many people are wondering just who the Tea Party is, and what they want. Here are some videos that give a rough idea:









It should be noted that these videos aren't a definitively representative example of how every member of the Tea Party is like, but it's a good start. You'll notice that almost everyone in the videos is white, middle-aged, and many seem to be shockingly ignorant of the details of the things about which they are speaking. They do not "come from all walks of life" as one woman put it in the videos. If you're a member of the Tea Party, it means you're also probably male, rural, upper-middle class, and conservative. The Tea Party is small, with only 10-18% of Americans saying they are a member.

While some people say that race is playing a major factor in these protests, it's hard to say that the whole party is that way. It is true, however, that many signs at Tea Party gatherings have been ignorant, racist, offensive, and inappropriate for what is essentially a demonstration against the federal government spending money.

It is also hard to miss the frequent accusations (unfounded) of socialism, communism, marxism, fascism, and whatever else the Tea Party members have come up with.
The Tea Party claims to be fighting "tyranny", despite the fact that President Obama was democratically elected, just like every other president in American history has been (including George W. Bush, no matter how much people like to argue about it). This is only one example of the insanity of the Tea Party, but at least they seem honest about how they feel.

A majority of members of the Tea Party have also experienced unemployment at some point in the recent past, or are currently unemployed. It will be interesting to see how many people stick with the movement after they get back on their feet, which will probably happen sooner than later because of that darn communist, pinko, fascist, socialist Obama's horrible stimulus package that is ruining the country.

It wouldn't be surprising if they continue with their hypocritical antics and maintain that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats, the "liberal" media and others are still the enemy, even after the main reason they're protesting no longer exists.

FIFA World Cup 2010 Preview, Part Two

GROUP E

The Netherlands (Rank 3)

The Netherlands returns to the World Cup on the back of yet another dominating qualifying campaign in which they won every game they played, conceding just twice and scoring 17 in the process. Boasting a star-studded lineup, the Dutch will be looking to finally come away with a trophy to show for their efforts, after having gone so close in previous tournaments. The Netherlands has a tendency to win games earlier in the tournament in style, but then when it comes to the do-or-die part, they will crash, as shown in their quarterfinal exit from Euro 2008 and the round of 16 match against Portgual in the 2006 edition of the World Cup. With Arjen Robben, Dirk Kuyt, and Mark van Bommel pulling the strings and shooting lights out, the Dutch should be a strong favorite for a semi-final place, if not the promised land of winning the tournament.

Arjen Robben

Denmark (Rank 34)

The Danes make a return to a big international tournament, after missing the World Cup 2006 in Germany and Euro 2008 in Austria/Switzerland. Denmark has shown that they are a very smart, capable team, after finishing ahead of favorites Sweden and Portugal in their qualifying group. Denmark has had strong showings at prior World Cups, advancing to the second round in 2002 and the quarterfinals in 1998, before losing to England and Brazil, respectively. If they want to do more of the same in South Africa, Denmark will need to rely on more of the same style of solid defense, controlled passing, and clinical shooting that got them through their qualification group at the expense of heavyweights Portugal and Sweden. Christian Poulsen, Dennis Rommedahl, Nicklas Bendtner, and Daniel Agger are the talents that have the ability to change a game in Denmark's favor, and they have a very good chance to get through this group and possibly spring a surprise once they get to the knockout rounds.

Japan (Rank 45)

Perennial Asian heavyweights Japan return for their fourth appearance at a World Cup. In 2006, Japan had a disappointing tournament, losing two and drawing one in the group stages. After reaching the second round at home in 2002, Japan would like to do the same in 2010. Finishing second to Australia in qualifying was something new for the Japanese, but perhaps a bit of competition in the Asian zone is just what Japan needs to get the extra cutting edge to advance out of their group. Japan's most well-known star is free kick specialist and midfielder Shunsuke Nakamura, who spent several seasons in Europe before heading back to Japan in the past year. Japan will have a tough time getting out of such a competitive group, similar to the strength of the group they were in in Germany. Japan will need to shore up their defense and look to the midfield to create plays that will allow them to not lose control of the game. A great result for Japan would be the second round, but it is more likely that fans will be disappointed once again.

Cameroon (Rank 20)

Cameroon is Africa's highest ranked nation, according to FIFA, and they will look to improve upon their last three outings at a World Cup, in which they failed to advance past the group stage. After starting their qualifying campaign with two straight draws, Cameroon pulled out four straight wins and finished ahead of Morocco. Star forward Samuel Eto'o will be relied upon to score the goals for Cameroon, with midfielder Alexandre Song hoping to provide the service required. The African nation will come in to the World Cup as a bit of an underdog, considering their inconsistent results over the past couple of years, but should they keep the goals out of their own net, they have a great chance at avoiding an early elimination at the group stages once again.

GROUP F

Italy (Rank 5)

Defending World Cup champions Italy are being touted as one of the favorites to win it all again, with head coach Marcello Lippi sticking around after the triumph of 2006. Italy hasn't played with the penache that they've been known for recently, but it was enough to finish top of their group with a game to spare in qualifying. Striker Alberto Gilardino will be relied upon to score goals for the Azzurri, while world-class goalkeepr Gianluigi Buffon will be tough to beat, as always. Italy definitely have the skill required to get out of their group, but many players on their squad are aging or already old, and they might not have the gas in the tank to keep up with other teams who have fresher legs. If they can rely upon experience as they did in 2006 to take up the slack, then Italy can go far again.

Alberto Gilardino

Paraguay (Rank 23)

Paraguay will have high hopes of performing the best they ever have at a World Cup, coming off of their best-ever showing in qualifying for the South America zone. Paraguay has always been known to be efficient in defense, and this year's squad is no different. What is different, is their offense, which is led by Roque Santa Cruz. Paraguay should be able to do enough to get out of their group, but it remains to be seen whether their offense can create enough chances to do more damage than just the second round.

New Zealand (Rank 79)

The Kiwis will be returning to the World Cup after 28 years in the wilderness, following their spectacular playoff series win over Bahrain. Though they say they aren't there to just make up the numbers, the odds don't look good for this tradtionally rugby-mad country. Captain Ryan Nelsen will be relied upon for his experience and consistency in defense, but the truth is, New Zealand simply lacks the firepower up front or creativity in the midfield to truly compete at this World Cup.

Slovakia (Rank 33)

Surprise qualifiers Slovakia will be making their first ever appearance at a FIFA World Cup. Slovakia finished top of their group ahead of Slovenia after defeating Poland 1-0 away on the last matchday. While not as star-filled as Italy or Denmark, Slovenia have some aces up their sleeves in Martin Skrtel and Stanislav Sestak. Their opponents in qualifying underestimated them, and it's likely that the same could happen in South Africa. However, Slovakia hasn't been at this stage of football before, and their lack of experience may hinder them. It could come down to a battle with Paraguay over who will finish behind Italy and advance to the next round.

GROUP G

Brazil (Rank 2)

You can't talk about World Cup contenders without talking about Brazil, too. The five-time champions are once again heavily favored to add to their trophy cabinet in South Africa. Brazil finished top of the South American qualifiers, but some early setbacks incensed the fans and put pressure on inexperienced coach Dunga. Brazil has such a deep roster that they could even possibly field a second team and win the whole thing. Recent international triumphs, like winning the 2007 Copa America and the 2009 Confederations Cup will give Brazil the confidence they need to avenge the quarterfinal defeat to France they suffered in 2006. The South American heavyweights will be hoping that the pressure to win doesn't get to them, and if they don't have any mishaps, they should be considered a lock-in for the semifinals, if not the finals themselves.

Can Brazil win another World Cup?

Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Rank 105)

After spending more than 30 years in the wilderness, North Korea makes a surprising return to football's largest tournament. Getting there wasn't easy: starting from the very first hurdle of qualifying, the North Koreans had to endure 20 months and 16 games before finishing second behind their brethren, South Korea. North Korea's best result at a World Cup came in 1966, when they defeated Italy 1-0 before losing to Portugal in the quarterfinals. Don't expect such magical results this time, as the Koreans find themselves in a veritable group of death, with Brazil, Portugal, and Côte d'Ivoire competing for the top two spots. They may be able to spring a surprise draw, but that's about all you can expect to see from North Korea at this year's edition of the World Cup.

Côte d'Ivoire (Rank 25)

The Ivory Coast is seen by many as Africa's best chance at winning a first World Cup. Boasting star players Didier Drogba and Salomon Kalou on offense, as well as Yaya Toure and Emmanuel Eboue on defense, the Africans are well-suited to go far in the tournament. Unfortunately, they were drawn in one of the hardest groups of the tournament, after a similar experience in Germany in 2006, where they exited early after 1-goal losses to the Netherlands and Argentina. The Ivorians will hope to learn from that experience, and if they can manage to get out of this tough group, they have a great chance at advancing far in the tournament.

Didier Drogba

Portgual (Rank 4)

Portugal will be looking to add to previous good showings at tournaments, but hopefully this time going a bit farther. A disappointing start to qualifying had Portugal on the cusp of being eliminated, but they turned it around for the second string of matches and managed a 2-0 aggregate win over Bosnia-Herzogovina to qualify for South Africa. All eyes will be on Cristiano Ronaldo, as his dazzling skills and spectacular goals are well-known. Portugal will have their hands full in Group G, however, and they will have to play much better than they did in qualifying, or there will be yet more disappointment and another 4 year wait for silverware.

Group H

Spain (Rank 1)

There hasn't been a better team in the world in the past 2 years than Spain. The Spanish kept rolling from the highs of winning Euro 2008 through World Cup qualifying, winning all 8 games they played. Spain has world-class players at virtuall every position, with Iker Casillas in goal, Xavi Hernandez in midfield, and Fernando Torres and David Villa at forward. Spain has gotten over their traditional disappointing performances at big tournaments after winning Euro 2008, and they look to have gotten the right mix of experience and desire to go all the way in 2010. They are one of the main favorites to win the tournament, and any team they face will have a tough time handling them.

Fernando Torres

Switzerland (Rank 20)

After making it to the round of 16 in Germany, the Swiss are returning and hoping for more in 2010. They almost didn't make it, after drawing to Israel and losing to minnows Luxembourg in the first two games of qualifying. However, the Swiss turned it around, with 5 wins on the trot to seal top spot ahead of the Greeks and qualify for South Africa. Striker Alexander Frei is the star player and captain for Switzerland, and they will have to rely on him to score goals, as their defense and midfield are strong enough to keep out the goals. If Switzerland can solve their offensive problems, they have a good chance at advancing out of this group and possibly going farther in the tournament.

Honduras (Rank 36)

Honduras makes a triumphant return for the second World Cup finals after missing out for over 28 years. If it hadn't been for a last-gasp equalizer by the Americans against Costa Rica, the Central Americans wouldn't be making this historic trip. Forwards Carlos Pavon and David Suazo are the main attacking threats for Honduras, with a strong defense rounding out the back. However, a lack of depth may be Honduras' undoing, as they'll face stiffer competition than they're used to. Their fans would like to argue differently, but Honduras will have too much of a hill to climb to get out of this group in June.

Chile (Rank 13)

Chile will be making a return to the World Cup after 12 years of being away. Boasting the youngest squad in South America, Chile finished only a point behind traditional heavyweights Brazil in qualifying, and their fans will be hoping to have more of the same cutting edge in South Africa. Chile's offense is not to be underestimated, as they scored 32 goals in helping to gain 10 wins, more than any other country in qualifying. The South Americans have the grit and resolve, as well as the offense needed to get the job done, Chile will be hoping to make up for lost time and should battle Switzerland for second spot in Group H.

Contenders: Brazil, Spain, England, Germany, the Netherlands, Argentina

Pretenders: Italy, Portugal, Côte d'Ivoire

Dark Horses: Australia, Serbia, Chile, United States

FIFA World Cup 2010 Preview, Part One

2010 FIFA World Cup Preview

The 2010 edition of the FIFA World Cup looms ahead of us, beginning in June. Much has been said about the problems the host country, South Africa, has or may have in hosting such a large event, but for now, we'll leave that part of the tournament aside. What footy fans are interested in are the games, and this tournament promises to be one to remember. Looking at all the qualified teams and the different groups, there probably has not been a prior World Cup with so many strong, competent teams and so few minnows, or teams that were expected to be destroyed. 32 teams in 8 groups of 4 teams each, playing in stadiums in 10 different cities in South Africa, the first country from that continent to host football's largest spectacle. With only the top two teams from each group going on to the next round, every single game takes on a monumental importance, as entire nations will hold their breath over the 90 minutes of the match. Who will do well? Who will disappoint? Who will surprise?

GROUP A

South Africa (Rank 88)

The hosts will finally get the chance to show the world how good their country can play. Unfortunately, this is probably not a good thing for them. Currently ranked 88^th, the Samba Warriors are missing the star power and talent that the powerhouses in Group A have. Their recent friendlies have been mixed, sometimes being terrible, sometimes mediocre, managing losses against Germany, Ireland, Norway, Serbia, and Iceland, with wins against Madagascar and Namibia to go with draws against Jamaica and Japan. However, no host nation has ever been eliminated before the second round, and South Africa's rabid fans will no doubt give them an extra advantage against their opponents. Home fans, while massive for motivating and improving performance (see: Korea, 2002) does not necessarily equate to results (see: Austria and Switzerland, Euro 2008). If South Africa play their hearts out, and are able to stay focused for every game, they may be able to pull an upset or two, but it's more likely that they go out, as their defense isn't strong enough and their offense not powerful enough to keep out the likes of France or Mexico.

Mexico (Rank 17)

Mexico comes into this World Cup with the expectations of a nation of 100 million, all hoping their country finally delivers on potential and breaks through the glass ceiling of the quarterfinals that has kept them in check at prior tournaments. Earlier in the qualifying campaign, it was unclear at one point whether Mexico would even qualify, as their form away from home was the exact opposite of when they were playing at their fortress of the Azteca stadium. However, coach Javier Aguirre seems to have righted the ship and they finished second in CONCACAF behind the United States. With players of the likes of Omar Bravo and Giovani Dos Santos, among others, Mexico is a very talented and dangerous team, capable of playing at the highest level and against the most elite nations. However, Mexico has a tendency to underperform in World Cups as of late, and when the time comes in big games, they implode. If they are able to keep their cool, stay on track, and play the way they can play, they have the potential to go quite far in South Africa.

Uruguay (Rank 18)

Though only a small country of 3 million, Uruguay is a regular competitor at FIFA World Cups, and this edition should be no different. Finishing 5^th in qualifying once again (they finished the same in 2005 but were eliminated in the play-off by Australia), Uruguay completed a 2-1 aggregate win over Costa Rica to qualify for the finals in South Africa. Uruguay has a squad of players coming from both South America and European leagues, with star players such as Diego Forlan and Luis Suarez adding firepower. Hardworking on both offense and defense, the former 1930 World Champions will be looking to advance past the round of 16 for the first time since 1970. Uruguay has shown they are capable of competing against the big teams, which they will have to do if they want to get out of the group. They also sometimes come up short in matches that they need to win, such as the 1-0 loss at home to Argentina that would have guaranteed them qualification. Look to Uruguay to be competitive in their chances at advancing to the round of 16.

France (Rank 8)

France is a traditional powerhouse of European and international football, but the past couple of years have left much to be improved upon for the French. After their disastrous showing at Euro 2008, France finished second in their qualifying group behind Serbia, with less-than-stellar performances against Romania and Lithuania along the way. It took a second-leg handball in Paris to put away the Irish in the play-offs, but France got the job done. Offensive firepower with the likes of Thierry Henry, Franck Ribery, and Nicolas Anelka to go along with defensive and midfield stalwarts such as William Gallas and Jeremy Toulalan providing balance to what should be, on paper, a team capable of challenging for the cup. However, coach Raymond Domenech has consistently appeared to manage to turn France into a bumbling, boring, and underperforming monstrosity. If his players play the way they know they can, despite his influence, than they can achieve a similar result to the World Cup 2006, where France finished second. Recent results, though, paint a different picture, and it could very well be that the French fans will be disappointed come June.

How France qualified

This group is, like many of the other groups, very interesting, and not easy to say who will definitively qualify for the next round. All the clubs have a very good chance of advancing and being eliminated earlier than expected. It will come down to which side shows up; if Mexico and France play up to their potential, they'll advance. If not, it could come down to goal differential, as each match should be closely fought.

GROUP B

Argentina (Rank 9)

Like France, Argentina is a traditional football powerhouse who just managed to qualify and is coming in playing under their normal high standards. Head coach and veritable god Diego Maradona managed to prove the doubters wrong and eaked out back-to-back 1-0 wins to secure qualification, saving face for what had truly been an awful campaign, with a 6-1 loss to Bolivia and an even more painful defeat at home to arch-rivals Brazil, only the second time ever that Argentina had lost at home. La Albiceleste boast immense star power, with Lionel Messi prominent among them, widely regarded as the best player in the game today. Despite their prior stumbling in qualifying, Argentina should easily get out of their group, but it remains to be seen how they willl fare in crunch time against bigger opponents.

Lionel Messi

Nigeria (Rank 22)

African powerhouse Nigeria has seen their fortunes dip a bit in the past couple of years, but their resilience is alive as ever, as evidenced by their qualifying campaign, in which they got off to a bad start with three straight draws before barely finishing ahead of Tunisia, courtesy of a come-from-behind 3-2 win against Kenya in the last match that sealed their place in South Africa. Nigeria will be looking to at least equal their prior achievements of reaching the second round at the World Cup in 1994 and 1998. The team, nicknamed the Super Eagles, will be relying upon star player Obafemi Martins to score the goals needed to get out of Group B. Nigeria has a better chance than either Korea or Greece at finishing behind Argentina, but the gap is really not that large, and it will most likely end up being a three-way fight for second place in the group among those countries.

Republic of Korea (Rank 49)

Korea is a frequent and consistent player at the World Cup. The problem is doing something once they're there. Fans can point to the fourth-place finish at the 2002 edition, which they hosted, but the reality is, Korea has not accomplished much of anything else at a finals hosted outside of their own country. As well, their qualifying campaign got off to a bumpy start before finally squeaking through with a 2-0 win against the United Arab Emirates. Captain Park-Ji Sung will be relied upon to orchestrate Korea's attack, which will need to extra-potent, as their defense is usually strong enough to keep the score low. If the offense doesn't show up, Korea will make yet another premature exit at the sport's most high-profile event.

Greece (Rank 11)

After coming out of nowhere to win Euro 2004 against all odds, Greece performed quite disappointingly, missing qualification for the 2006 World Cup and leaving Euro 2008 at the group stages. However, this is only the second ever World Cup Greece will have participated in, and excitement is running high. German coach Otto Rehhagel has shown what he is capable of, as Greece defeated the likes of Portugal, France, and Spain at Euro 2004 despite not having anywhere near the amount of famous names as those countries. However, it is likely that Greece will prove that Euro 2004 was more of a fluke than anything, although it is still possible they can get out of this group with strong performances against teams not named Argentina. Anything beyond the second round would be fantastic beyond most people's expectations of the Mediterranean nation.

GROUP C

England (Rank 7)

A reinvigorated English squad comes into South Africa looking to add to their sole World Cup trophy in 1966. Bouncing back from the disappointment of failing to qualify for Euro 2008, England sailed through their World Cup qualifying group, winning nine out of their ten games and scoring 34 goals in the process, the highest for any European country. Under Italian coach Fabio Capello, England appears to have finally transformed their enormous potential into performance. With household names such as Lampard, Terry, Ferdinand, Rooney, and Gerrard, the English team is packed full of players who ply their trade in one of the best leagues in the world, the Barclay's Premier League. Under Capello, England has achieved many impressive results, and there is no reason to suggest that this cannot continue in South Africa. One factor which may hamper England is the length of their domestic season, which, unlike other countries, does not take a Winter break and plays well into May, which may exhaust players before heading to the World Cup in June. If Wayne Rooney is healthy, look for him to score the goals that could propel England to a much-awaited second World Cup title.

Wayne Rooney

United States (Rank 16)

The United States enters sixth consecutive finals aiming to improve upon their 2006 showing, where they were eliminated from a tough group that included Italy and the Czech Republic with one draw and two losses, only scoring one goal. The U.S.'s qualifying run started off in the best possible way, with yet another 2-0 win over arch-rivals Mexico. After disappointing losses to Costa Rica and Mexico away from home, the Americans secured qualification with a nerve-wracking 3-2 win in Honduras, with the game-tying penalty kick for the Hondurans missing in the final minutes. Coach Bob Bradley has often fiddled with the lineup in friendly matches, but he is guaranteed to pick Landon Donovan to come to South Africa. The Los Angeles Galaxy star will look to control play and create goals, along with the likes of Clint Dempsey, Oguchi Onyewu, Michael Bradley, and Jozy Altidore also hoping to play a role. The U.S. will hope they can emulate their performance at the 2009 Confederations Cup, which saw them hand Spain a surprising defeat and jump out to a 2-0 lead over Brazil before finally succumbing. All eyes will be on the first match of the finals against England, but the true litmus test for the U.S. will come against Algeria and Slovenia. Barring any hiccups, the Americans should be able to at least advance to the second round, with their hopes on something beyond that as well.

Algeria (Rank 27)

Algeria made it to the first finals appearance in 24 years on the back of a nailbiting playoff win against Egypt, a result which caused riots in Africa and Europe. Despite their excitement at beating their rivals and finally returning to the world stage, Algeria will have their work cut out for them. A lack of experience at this type of tournament will probably harm their prospects, as their 4-0 loss in the semifinals of the Africa Cup of Nations showed. However, in the same tournament, Algeria defeated heavy favorite Côte d'Ivoire 3-2 and will be looking to do more giant-killing in South Africa. Unless Algeria can shore up its defense, figure a way for its midfield to be more creative, and capitalize on the chances they get, their stay at the tournament will end like their other trips, at the group stage.

Slovenia (Rank 29)

The small eastern-European nation of Slovenia defied the odds to beat bigger teams like the Czech Republic, Poland, and Russia to qualify for their second tournament since independence in 1991. Slovenia's bread and butter in qualifying was their defense, allowing a measly four goals in ten matches. a feat only bettered by the Netherlands (who played 2 games fewer). If Slovakia hadn't beat Poland 1-0 away in the final match of the qualification period, Slovenia wouldn't have needed to go through a two-legged playoff against Russia. Despite being the overwhelming underdog, Slovenia produced a masterful effort to defeat the Russians 1-0 in the second leg to achieve a 2-2 tie on aggregate, with their goal scored in Moscow counting for twice due to the away-goals rule. Lacking the star power that fellow group members England or USA have, Slovenia will have to rely upon their opponent underestimating them once again, as well as their defence staying as airtight as possible to secure the points needed to advance. A realistic goal would be for second place in Group C, with the reward of advancing to the second round being phenomenal for the Slovenians.

GROUP D

Germany (Rank 6)

The reliable Germans are once again among the contenders at the World Cup. Die Mannschaft finished first in their group, courtesy of a 1-0 win in Moscow that forced Russia to go to the playoff against Slovenia. Germany will be looking to once again go deep in the tournament, hoping to add to their three wins of 1954, 1976, and 1990, along with a second place in 2002 and third place in 2006. Captain Michael Ballack will hope to finally guide his country to glory, after falling short in the final of Euro 2008 against Spain. Miroslav Klose will most likely be there to put the ball in the back of the net, and the Germans will more likely than not find their way in the latter stages of the tournament, though they may not be pretty or stylish in doing so.

Michael Ballack

Australia (Rank 19)

Australia has improved by leaps and bounds since switching their conference from Oceania to Asia several years ago. At the 2006 Wold Cup, only a cruel last-minute penalty by Italy eliminating them in the second round. Australia bounced back remarkably well, cruising by in their qualifying group, going undefeated and finishing five points ahead of Japan, their nearest challenger. Dutch coach Pim Verbeek has shown his tactical brilliance in prior matches, and he will look to do the same again in Group D. Australia's defense is generally solid, and they will rely on Tim Cahill and Harry Kewell to provide the goals that will secure their progress to the second round, the minimum that the Australians can expect in South Africa. The Socceroos have the potential to possibly go farther, and much will depend on how they perform against the more traditional footballing countries, like Germany.

Serbia (Rank 15)

When the qualifying groups were made known for the European zone, many expected France to come out on top. However, Serbia would be the ones finishing first after defeating Romania 5-0 on the last matchday. South Africa 2010 will be Serbia's first since independence in 2006, although it would really be more like their second in a row, considering they appeared as Serbia-Montenegro in Germany. Serbia will be counting on their defense, headed by Manchester United star Nemanja Vidic, to anchor their team in this competitive group. Serbia will have to learn their lessons from the last World Cup, where they also showed up with a fantastic defensive record before losing all three games they played in. If they can play the way they did against Romania or Japan, where they won 3-0 in Osaka, Serbia have a great chance at advancing to the second round, or even further.

Ghana (Rank 31)

The Black Stars are back again, after being the only African country to make it out of the group stage in 2006. Ghana will be looking to repeat their performance from then and add to their impressive results in international competitions, which include several Africa Cup of Nations titles, as well as two FIFA U-17 World Cups. Ghana was the first African country to qualify for the finals, losing just once and only conceding one goal throughout the entire phase. Ghana's strength is their midfield, led by Michael Essien, who, together with Sulley Muntari, will help to orchestrate attacking threats and clogging opponents' advances. If the midfield plays up to their potential, and the defense can over-perform somewhat, Ghana have a good chance at advancing to the second round, but they will need to have more in the engine if they want to be able to out-fox teams the bigger, more talented teams. They will likely have their hands full in each of their matches in a very competitive Group D.

The Revisionist Desire in Dixie

Understanding history is vital to understanding oneself. In the United States, American history is drawn upon on a daily basis. A good example is how people reference the Founding Fathers, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution to defend or support their political views, as evidenced by the prominence of related signs at Tea Party rallies. However, it sets a dangerous precedence when one misunderstands, either willingly or not, one's own history to use for their own ends. Recently, it seems more and more conservatives, especially from the South, are drawing upon or referencing our common history in the wrong manner, often distorting facts or seeming to appear just plain ignorant of what they are talking about.


A lot of members of the so-called "Tea Party" movement proclaim that the country is "moving away from what it was founded on", referencing the Founding Fathers' "Christian" roots/beliefs and apparent love for small government. Never mind the fact that many of the Founding Fathers were not true Christians, the way we would interpret the meaning today. Nor the fact that, from the very beginning of American self-government, there existed a party system that included both Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party who desired a strong central government and the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who were just about the exact opposite. It's interesting to note the similarities to today of how Hamilton's idea for a strong central, federal government (i.e. the Democrats) came from the North and both Jefferson and Madison, who hailed from Virginia, preferred small, non-influential government (i.e. the Republicans). So the very basis of what many of the teabaggers are saying are not exactly the truth, although it's most likely the "truth" from how they learned it.

This altered take on history by conservatives can be seen in two recent examples. The first is Virginia governor Bob McDonnell declaring "Confederate History Month". Saying that the the Confederate rebels (i.e. traitors) "fought for their homes and communities", McDonnell, who is Republican, left out one major aspect of the Confederacy's short-lived reign: the role of slavery. To ignore such an important aspect of not only Confederate history, but of American history, is downright unacceptable and offensive to the millions of slaves who lived under terrible conditions, as well as to the millions of their descendants. The President himself called out the governor on this travesty, who quickly issued an apology. However, in standard Republican fashion, the apology rings hollow, as McDonnell went on to explain the reasons for his omission, stating that "slavery wasn't a significant part" of the reason for why Virginia seceded and that there were many other reasons that ignited the Civil War. I wonder if he'd be saying the same thing to the African-American population of Virginia, were they in front of him. So the 30% of the population of Virginia in 1860 who were slaves is not considered significant? Really? While it's true that, yes, there were many reasons for why states seceded, the massive role that slavery played in the conflict cannot and should not be understated, or as it is this case, ignored.

I'll leave it to Jason Linkens to put the whole idea of a Confederate History Month in perspective:
Meanwhile, why not have a Union Appreciation Day, where people wear T-Shirts with Abraham Lincoln's visage that read, "Tell us how our taint tastes, treasonholes?" Next year, at Appomattox!

Thomas Jefferson

While Governor McDonnell is content to simply proclaim ideas, Texas is taking things much more seriously. In a 10-5 vote along party lines, the Texas Board of Education (none of whom are historians) ratified several changes to the make-up of history textbooks that will be in Texan schools for the next 10 years. Among these changes are the stressing of American capitalism, diminishing the idea of separation of church and state among the Founding Fathers, and, in the most insane move of all, completely removing Thomas Jefferson's name from a section on great political thinkers. The reasons for these, as always, involve some sort of "liberal bias" on the part of, well, everybody else. One is left to imagine whether future Texas high school graduates will wonder who the dude on the nickel is.

Minderheiten, Migranten und Integration in Deutschland

Eine Idee vom türkischen Ministerpräsident Racep Tayyip Erdogan, türkische Schülen in Deutschland einzuführen, hat eine Debatte in der Politik ausgelöst. Ein Land, in dem eine große türkische Minderheit existiert, muss unbedingt irgendwie eine Integrationzusammenarbeit durchsetzen, um nationalistische Einheit zu halten. Normalerweise ist das Subjekt der Nationalismus und Stolz heutzutage in Deutschland etwa merkwürdig zu diskutieren, wegen den Zweiten Weltkrieg und den schrecklichen Täten, die die Nazis gemacht haben, aber bei einem Thema wie dieses darf eine Ausnahme in die Frage kommen.

Es gibt in der aktuellen deutschen Politik fast kaum andere erregte Debatte wie die Integration von Minderheiten; die meisten davon werden die ethnische türkische Einwohnerzahl erwähnt. In Deutschland leben 6,75 millionen Ausländer; 1,73 millionen davon haben türkische Herkunft. Manche Menschen sind darüber verärgert, dass einige Türken, die in Deutschland geboren oder aufgewachsen werden oder seit Jahren im Land gelebt haben, nur gebrochenes Deutsch oder weniger sprechen können. Aus diesem Hintergrund kam die Aussage von Herrn. Erdogan, dass es in Deutschland türkische Gymnasien sein solle, wobei die Unterrichtsprache Türkisch wäre. Was gefurchtet ist, dass die Studententen bei solchen Schulen oder Universitäten kein Deutsch lernen würden, und damit die Kluft zwischen gesellschaftlichen Integration verbreitet geworden wäre. Man will in Deutschland keine Parallelgesellschaften haben.

Die Einführung türkischen Schulen solle die Integration für Türken leichter machen, sagte Erdogan. In einem interview mit „Die Zeit“ soll der Ministerpräsident gesagt haben „In der Türkei haben wir deutsche Gymnasien. Warum sollte es keine türkische Gymnasien in Deutschland geben?“. Darüber hinaus schlägt er die Gründung türkischsprachigen Universitäten vor. Grund dafür ist, dass bereits in der Türkei eine Türkisch-Deutsche Universität gebildet wird. Erdogan gibt auch den Rat dazu, dass die Migranten nicht fliessend Deutsch sprechen können, bis Sie ihre eigene Sprache beherrschen. Einige Leute befürchten, dass einestages am schlimmsten Fall das deutsche Volk Türkisch sprechen müssen werden, wie dieses YouTube video zeigt. Diese Situation, entweder im Video oder den finsteren Gedanken, ist fast garantiert nie zu geschehen, aber so ein Thema und Politik bewegt man sehr, dass es manchmal schwierig logisch und klar zu denken ist.

Ministerpräsident Erdogan

Die Reaktion der deutschen Bevölkerung wurde also dagegen stark aufgetaucht: Bei einer Umfrage der BILD-Zeitung, mit einer Anzahl von über 87.000, die gefragt hat „Was halten Sie von türkischen Gymnasien in Deutschland?“, hat die Antwort „Falsch! Türkische Migranten sollten sich in Deutschland integrieren und nicht andersherum“ mehr als 86% der Stimmung bekommen. Vor einer Reise in die Türkei hat Bundeskanzlerin Merkel Migranten zum Deutsch lernen aufgefordert. Frau Merkal hat sich zum Thema türkische Lehrer an deutschen Schulen schwierig vorgestellt.

In der Welt-Zeitung gab es auch solche Kommentaren, die Vorschläge für Migranten und Minderheiten hatten. Bettina Röhl hat gesagt „Ministerpräsident Erdogan mischt sich auf inakzeptable Weise in die deutsche Politik“ und „Merkel muss Erdogan in die Schranken weisen!“. Die Autorin dieses Artikels geht weiter, die Grünen von „sanktionieren Erdogans undemokratische und intolerable Manipulationen“ vorzuwerfen. Andrea Siebels Titel ihres Artikels behauptet „Deutsch ist wichtiger als Türkisch“. Sie fügt einen Kommentar noch dazu: „Doch hierzulande wird bereits zu viel Türkisch gesprochen und gedacht.“ Sie spricht von Integration und der Rolle einer Landessprache damit hat, sagt „Die Landessprache ist der Schlüssel zur Teilhabe an einer Gesellschaft.“ Die Umfrage im gleichen Artikel zeigt 89% der über 16.000 abgegebenen Stimmen, die „Nein“ sagt für eine Antwort zur Frage „Halten Sie türkische Gymnasien in Deutschland für sinnvoll?“. Ein schneller Blick auf die Kommentaren der Leser zeigt, dass die meisten davon mit der Autorins These zustimmt.

Mancher dieser Artikeln oder Politiker versuchen, auch das Thema der EU-Mitgliedschlaft der Türkei einzubringen. Es geht aber hier nicht um die Vorteilen oder Nachteilen die Türkei hätte, wenn Sie in die EU aufgenommen würden, sondern um das größer Bild der Einheit, nationale Identität, und Integration der Minderheiten in Deutschland.

Wenn ein Land viele Immigranten verschiedener Herkunften jedes Jahr bekommt, es ist nicht leicht Konflikte zwischen Gruppen zu verhindern. Verschiedene Länder haben natürlich verschiedene Kultureigenschaften, und wenn die Kultur eines Landes mit der Kultur und Gesellschaft eines anderen Land zusammenkommt, kommt auch Integrationsprobleme. Wie soll ein Land eine nationale Einheit haben, wenn im gleichen Land mehr als eine Sprache gesprochen wird? Sprache und Kultur gehen miteinandern zusammen; Sie sind untrennbar. Die Integrationspolitik wird immer größer, als noch mehr und mehr Einwohnern ihr Heimatland verlassen und neue Länder mit neuen Kulturen und Sprachen erleben. Deutschland ist ein Land, das die Immigranten annimmt, und das ihre eigene eizigartige Geschichte, Kultur, Ereignisse und Tradition hat. Ohne eine einheitliche Identität (Sprache gehört dazu) kann ein Staat sich auflösen, wie was mit Jugoslawien in den letzten Jahren passiert ist.

Die Bundesrepublik kann sich auf Kanada und die USA rechnen, zwei Beispiele für wie ein Land mit Immigration und Integration behandeln kann. In den USA spricht man vom sogenannten „Melting Pot“, ein historisches Wort mit der Bedeutung, dass neueingezogenen Immigranten sich assimiliert hatten, damit Sie in weniger Jahren komplett in die Amerikanische Kultur und Gesellschaft gezogen sind. Kanada hat noch ein anderes Vorgehen dazu. In diesem Land spricht man vom Multikulturalismus, von einem „cultural mosaic“. Das heisst, man darf nach Kanada kommen und nicht die Heimatkultur verlieren, wie Sie über das Amerikanische System sagen. Ein Problem damit ist, die Immigranten kommen ins Land, aber muss sich nicht assimilieren, und deswegen leben Sie in kulturellen „Ghettoes“, kaufen in ihren eigenen Läden ein und mit ihren eigenen Mitbewohnern zusammenwirken, die auch aus dem selben Herkunfstland kommen.

Die Lösung zu dieser Frage soll irgendwie dazwischen kommen. Claus Christian Malzahn fordert eine „zweite deutsche Einheit“, d.h. Bildung und Bekenntnis zur deutschen Sprache für Minderheiten. Er stellt 4 wichtige Fragen vor: Zu wem gehören die Einwanderer in Deutschland? Wo liegen ihre politischen Loyalitäten? Wie provoziert man ihren Einstiegs- und Aufstiegswillen? Wer gewinnt den Kampf um ihre Herzen? Er behauptet, die Antworten dieser Fragen entscheiden über die Zukunft der Bundesrepublik, und er hat zwar Recht. Deutschland sei ein Einwanderungsland und brauche Einwanderer. Malzahn fordert die Einschliessung der Migranten und Minderheiten, nicht die Ausschliessung, aber zuerst muss auch unbedingt die deutsche Sprache 100% als Amtsprache haben. Das ist am wichtigsten für ihn. Während ein neuer Migrant Deutsch lernen soll, er muss nicht auch seine eigene Kultur und Sprache hinterlassen. Integration heisst nicht einfach unbedingt völlig assmilieren. Was Amerikaner über ihre eigene Identät stolz macht, dass es egal ist, welche Farbe, Rasse, Kultur oder Ethnizität man hat, Sie sind alle Amerikaner mit einer gemeinsamen Kultur, Geschichte und Gesellschaft. Was absolut wichtig ist, um die Integration so leicht und effizient wie möglich zu machen, ist die Beherrschung der deutschen Sprache mit Einwandern und gleichzeitig die Einführung der Bildungsprogramme, die eine nationale Einheit und Identität instillieren. Es sollte aber auch klar gemacht werden, dass die Migranten und Minderheiten ihre eigene Identität und Kultur nicht verlassen müssen, sondern dass diese Aspekte die Gesellschaft der Bundesrepublik bereichern.

Ohne Einwander und Minderheiten werden Deutschland und die deutsche Gesellschaft stagnieren, aber ohne mindestens einige Assimilierung könnte das Land zusammenbrechen. Deshalb braucht Deutschland eine definitiv Einwanderungs- und Integrationspolitik, damit die Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft, Kultur, Einheit und Identität weitergehen können.

La France réalise le Grand Chelem

Samedi, le 20 mars, face aux Anglais à la Stade de France, la France s'est imposée 12-10 et a gagnée le Grand Chelem du Tournoi des Six Nations pour le neuvième fois. Ce match dernière n'était pas le meilleur, mais il est claire que la France était l'équipe de rugby qui a méritée le trophée.

Avant le Tournier, le XV de France n'avait pas gagné plus que trois temps en succession sous le règne de Marc Lièvremont. Dans une série des test matchs en Novembre, la France était magnifique et brillant en gagnant contre l'Afrique du Sud (20-13) et le Samoa (43-5), mais les All Blacks a montré qu'ils sont un pouvoir trop bien pour que des français. Cet match au Stade Vélodrome de Marseille a fini avec un score de 12-39 pour la nation sud-hémisphérique.

Alors, il y a beaucoup des questions pour les fans de rugby français avant le plus grand spectacle de rugby annuel en Europe. La France avait montrée des vues de leur immense capacité en été, en gagnant un match et en perdant l'autre chez les Blacks. Ça c'est une période troublante pour les Bleus, même sur le champ de rugby et d'ailleurs. Une victoire et deux défaites contre la Nouvelle-Zélande et l'Australie était suivi par le cas de Mathieu Bastareaud, qui était trouvé d'avoir menti au sujet d'un agression pendant la nuit du 20 juin à Wellington. En fait, le centre d'origine guadeloupéenne avait trop bu et rentrant a l'hôtel avec deux femmes (celui qu'était filmé par des vidéos surveillances) tard dans la nuit. La réaction de la presse Nouvelle-Zélandaise a fait un œil noir pour la France. Ça c'était un peut-être grand motivation pour la Nouvelle-Zélande d'écraser les français à Marseille.

Mathieu Bastareaud

Le rugby français, puis, avait des problèmes d'image: Qu'est-ce que la vraie France? Il était incertain de savoir comment l'équipe nationale jouerai dans le Tournoi. L'équipe français sous Lièvremont ne pouvait pas tenir un consistance de match de match qui est nécessaire dans un équipe de rugby au première classe. Au Tournoi de 2009, les Bleus ont perdus le premier match aux irlandais à Dublin et, après deux victoires confortable contre les écossais et les gallois, un autre défait a suivi a Twickenham, chez les anglais. Mais 2010 serai différent; différent pour l'équipe, les joueurs, l'entraineur, et la nation.

Le première challenge est l'Écosse, qui pouvait avoir été un match très difficile, mais en fait, était un confortable 18-9 jour à Murrayfield, avec deux essais de Bastareaud, qui est revenu dans l'équipe et restaurait son honneur avec son action courageux et génial. En passant cet première obstacle du Tournoi, la France devait se préparer mentalement et physiquement pour le grand showdown d'importance immense contre les champions de l'année dernière, l'Irlande. Les Irlandais avaient jusqu'alors marchés sur tous les adversaires en remportant leur premier Grand Chelem depuis 61 ans et était l'équipe le plus favori de prendre le trophée encore un fois. Le 13 février cependant ferait un point très différents aux supporteurs et médias irlandais, qui était superbement démontré au Stade de France. Une victoire française n'était pas en doute, avec un score de 17-3 à mi-temps et trois essais avant la soixantième minute. Devant presque 80 000 spectateurs, la France a jouée le jeu qu'ils veulent jouer et qu'ils aiment de jouer, contrôlant et dominant les visiteurs pendant le match entier. Le score à la fin est 33 points à seulement 10, une première défaite irlandaise sur 12.

France-Irlande

Après cette domination monumentale en battant l'équipe la plus capable de arrêtant un titre de arriver aux mains des français, les Bleus sassait ce qui devait faire pour prendre le titre et ainsi, un autre Grand Chelem à suivre ceux qui avaient été gagné dans d'ères précédents. Les nations restantes pour la France avaient des problèmes et challenges pour leur soi: le Pays de Galles n'étaient pas une fluidité solide dans leurs joueurs, un fait qu'avait résulté dans présentations languides et déficients avec une défaite faible chez les Irlandais; l'Italie manque leur joueur le plus créatif et remarquable dans Mirco Bergamasco, ainsi que des autres joueurs à cause de blessures; l'Angleterre acharnait en gagnant contre les gallois et italiens, et avec une défaite à domicile aux Irlandais et un match nul contre l'Écosse, opposait leurs médias et supporteurs auxquelles expectatives l'équipe n'avait pas complètement accédé. En comparaison, la France est maintenant confident et assure de gagnant le titre des Six Nations et, s'ils avaient de courage et du désir suffisant de finir leurs matchs invaincu, un Grand Chelem.

En premier, le match au Millenium Stadium contre les gallois. Le premier temps était encore une fois domine par la France, qu'est courue à un score de 0-20 avec deux essais de Palisson et Trinh-Duc, ainsi que deux pénalités de Parra. Une autre histoire était le deuxième temps, quand le Pays de Galles est retourné avec vengeance et un come-back qu'a surpris les français. Ça ce n'est pas suffisant de vaincre la France, et le score final était juste et sportif, avec 20-26 pour les Bleus. Le Millenium Stadium est fameux pour son ambiance magnifique et terrible, mais il était très tranquille à la fin du match, ce qu'était un point de fierté pour les français. Le match contre l'Italie sera quelque d'un blague pour les Bleus, parce que les opposants ont jamais offert une résistance forte de répondre à l'offensif français. La France a fait trois essais dans 30 minutes et jamais semblait d'être troublé par les italiens, qui, pour leurs efforts, ont jamais abandonnes et convertis deux essais dans les dernières 10 minutes du match, de faire un score final de 46-20.

Et puis, le match final sera face aux Anglais, une nation de rugby que Marc Lièvremont a jamais vaincu. Le souvenir de l'année dernière n'était pas jolie pour la France, où les Bleus ont déclinés au stade historique du rugby anglais, Twickenham. Mais c'est un tournoi différent pour la France. Un tournoi duquel ils y croient ce qu'ils peuvent mériter. Le final du Tournoi des Six Nations ont eu lieu au Stade de France. Devant leurs spectateurs leur-mêmes, l'Angleterre est le premier d'ouvert le score à force de Foden dans la cinquième minute. Les joueurs français sont choques. Le rêve du Grand Chelem pouvait été en danger sérieux. Le titre du champion du Tournoi n'était pas en doute, avec l'Irlande perdant le match avant contres les écossais, mais c'est le Grand Chelem que les joueurs ont pu. La réponse est prompt, rapide, et effectif: Avec un drop de Trinh-Duc et trois pénalités en succession grâce de Parra, la France reprends la direction du match, 12-7. Le match est devenu turgide, lente, et assommant, avec l'Angleterre essayant de bouger le ballon et la France n'ayant pas l'intéresse en redonner la faveur. Un pénalité de Johnny Wilkinson, qui actuellement joue avec Toulon dans le Top 14, a fait le match nerveux pour les français, spectateurs et joueurs de même. À 12-10, les deux équipes avaient la même chance de prendre le match, mais ce sera finalement les hommes en bleu qui ont émergés victorieux.

Avec cet triomphe, la France a gagnée son dix-septième titre du Tournoi des Six Nations et neuvième Grand Chelem, après ceux de 1968, 1977, 1981, 1987, 1997, 1998, 2002, et 2004. Un véritable mission accompli pour l'équipe de rugby française, qui peux regarder maintenant à la Coupe du monde 2011 avec les mêmes yeux desirant.