Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise

The issues at the heart of the Greek crisis--huge public debt, slow population growth, expansive welfare system and weakening economic fundamentals--extend to a wider range of European countries--most notably in weaker fringe nations like Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain (the so-called PIIGS). These problems also pervade many E.U. countries still outside the Eurozone in both the Baltics and the Balkans.

But things are also dicey in some of the core European powers, notably Great Britain, which has soaring debt, high unemployment and very slow growth. Even solvent economies like France, the Netherlands and the continental superpower , Germany, have fallen short of expectations and are expected to experience meager growth for the rest of the year.

Europe's poor performance undermines the widespread view held by left-leaning American pundits, policy wonks and academics about Europe's supposedly superior model. This Euro-philia has a long history, going back at least to the Tories during the Revolution. In better times America usually moves beyond European norms instead of retreating to its cultural mother.

When the U.S. hits a rough spot, however, there's a ready chorus urging us to emulate the old continent. During the psychological meltdown that accompanied the Vietnam War, some pundits looked longingly at the relatively peaceful and increasingly affluent Europe as a role model. "There is much to be said for being a Denmark or Sweden, even a Great Britain, France or Italy," Andrew Hacker said in 1971.

In the 1980s, as the country struggled to recover its historic competitiveness, numerous pundits suggested adopting European models, notably French and German, to restore our economic standing--a notion widely echoed by Euro-nationalists such as former French President Francois Mitterand's eminence grise, Jacques Attali.

Two decades later, with the U.S. reeling from the Great Recession, there's been a rebirth of euro-mania. Author Parag Khanna, for his part, envisions a "shrunken" America that is lucky to eke out a meager existence between a "triumphant China" and a "retooled Europe." And Jeremy Rifkin, in his The European Dream, promotes the continent as a morally preferable model--more egalitarian, open and environmentally sensitive--a sentiment recently echoed in my old New America colleague Steven Hill's Europe's Promise: Why the European Way Is the Best Hope in an Insecure Age.

Yet over the past four decades Europe's core economies--the E.U. 15--have lagged behind the U.S. in terms of both gross domestic product and job growth. Overall, the E.U. 15's share of the global GDP has declined to 26% from 35% while the U.S. has held on to its share, now roughly equal to that of its European counterparts. The big winners, of course, have been in East and South Asia.

Some of this has to do with the difficulties of maintaining an elaborate welfare state. In a productive, efficient and still largely homogeneous country such as the Netherlands or Sweden, an expansive system of social insurance and a vast public sector remains an affordable luxury.

In contrast, countries like Portugal, Greece and to some extent Spain have tried to create a Scandinavian-style welfare state based on Banana Republic economies. In addition, over-reliance on tourism and real estate speculation has proved no more viable there than in places like Las Vegas or Phoenix.

Europe's problems may prove even more profound in the long term. For example, Europe has some of the lowest birthrates in the world. Among 228 countries ranked in terms of birthrate, Europe accounts for 20 of the bottom 28. These include relatively prosperous Germany (No. 226) and Sweden as well as a range of the shaky fringe including Greece, Bosnia, Hungary, Latvia, Italy, Portugal and Spain.

The shrinking population problem is complicated by the fact that the one growing source of new Europeans consists of Muslim immigrants who generally have not integrated well into continental society. Many European countries--Denmark, the Netherlands and Switzerland, for example--are taking steps to shut their doors, something that may promote harmony and security but could exacerbate the long-term demographic decline.

With their state-driven economies pledged largely to support a growing population of aging boomers, it's hard to see what new sources of growth will propel the continent in the coming decades. Overall, according to the European Central Bank, the Eurozone's growth potential is now roughly half that of the United States.

Meager economic growth may also be affecting on one of Europe's greatest achievements: its relative egalitarianism. The trend toward greater inequality, earlier evident in the U.S., has now spread to Europe, including such famously "egalitarian" countries as Finland, Norway and Germany, which was the only E.U. country to see wages fall between 2000 and 2008.

In Berlin, Germany's largest city, unemployment has remained far higher than the national average, with rates at around 15%. One quarter of the workforce earns less than 900 euros a month. In Berlin, 36% of children are poor, many of them the children of immigrants. "Red Berlin," with its egalitarian ethos, notes one left-wing activist, has emerged as "the capital of poverty and the working poor in Germany." [i]

As in the U.S., the burden of recession has fallen most heavily on younger people. An OECD analysis found that older European workers enjoyed the best gains during the past 30 years, while children and young people fared worse. For E.U. workers under 25 the unemployment rate is well over 20%, slightly higher than that of the U.S.but a remarkable statistic given the far less rapid expansion of the European workforce.

The situation is particularly dire in Europe's exposed southern tier. Young people who rioted in Athens in 2008 suffer unemployment rates in excess of 25%. By the end of 2009 unemployment for those under 25 stood at 44% in Spain and 31% in Ireland. Even in Sweden the youth unemployment rate has reached 27%.

If the pattern of the last decade holds, many of Europe's most talented young people will end up in the U.S., particularly once the recession comes to an end. By 2004 some 400,000 European Union science and technology graduates were residing in the U.S. Barely one in seven, according to a recent European Commission poll, intends to return. "The U.S. is a sponge that's happy to soak up talent from across the globe," observes one Irish scientist.

Of course, there is still much we can learn from Europe. Besides a sometimes enviable lifestyle, Europeans offer some intriguing health care models and have led the way in efficient fuel economy standards. But overall, profound differences in demographics and cultural traditions suggest that America cannot easily follow European approach to social organization and planning.

Indeed as the U.S. and Europe confront the challenge of the rising Asian powers, their approaches likely will have to diverge. To maintain its economy and pay its debts, America will have to focus on creating jobs and opportunities for a growing population. Europeans will struggle with declining workforces, radically skewed demographics and an increasingly burdensome welfare state.

In the 21st century we will witness not so much a clash of civilizations, but a more subtle parting of the ways. Americans need to choose a path that makes sense for us, not one drawn from an aging society whose future seems unlikely to match its past achievements.

Joel Kotkin is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is also an adjunct fellow at the Legatum Institute in London and serves as executive editor of newgeography.com. He writes the weekly New Geographer column for Forbes. His next book, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, will be published by Penguin in February.

6. Do you think Barack Obama deserves to be reelected, or not?
All Americans
Yes: 44%
No: 52%
Registered Voters
Yes: 44%
No: 52%

President Obama's job rating is slightly better, though still in negative territory. Forty-nine percent approve of the job he's doing while 50% disapprove. Overall, President Obama's job rating in the RealClearPolitics Average is 47.8% approve, 45.9% disapprove.

The reelect numbers for members of both parties in Congress are slightly worse (41% yes, 56% no for Dems and GOP among registered voters), and the GOP leads the Democrats by 2 points in the generic congressional ballot, 48 to 46. Overall, Republicans lead by 1.5 percent in the RealClearPolitics Averge for the generic ballot, 45.2 to 43.7.

... et Rasmussen donne le GOP avec 9 points d'avance sur les Democrates

Top U.N. climate change official Yvo de Boer told The Associated Press Thursday that he was resigning after nearly four years, a period when governments struggled without success to agree on a new global warming deal. His departure takes effect July 1, five months before 193 nations are due to reconvene in Mexico for another attempt to reach a binding worldwide accord on controlling greenhouse gases.



De Boer is known to be deeply disappointed with outcome of the last summit in Copenhagen, which drew 120 world leaders but failed to reach more than a vague promise by several countries to limit carbon emissions -- and even that deal fell short of consensus.



But he denied to the AP that his decision to quit was a result of frustration with Copenhagen.



"Copenhagen wasn't what I had hoped it would be," he acknowledged, but the summit nonetheless prompted governments to submit plans and targets for reining in the emissions primarily blamed for global warming. "I think that's a pretty solid foundation for the global response that many are looking for," he said.



De Boer's resignation comes in the wake of the continuing Climate-gate scandal -- a story that began with the leak of stolen e-mails from top climate scientists and led to revelations of sloppy science, efforts to suppress dissenting opinions and ultimately flaws in the U.N.'s top climate policy document.


The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal recently dropped a bombshell of his own, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.



De Boer nevertheless told the AP he believes talks "are on track," although it was uncertain that a full treaty could be finalized at the next high-level conference in November.



The partial agreement reached in Copenhagen, brokered by President Barack Obama, "was very significant," he said. But he acknowledged frustration that the deal was merely "noted" rather than formally adopted by all countries.



"We were about an inch away from a formal agreement. It was basically in our grasp, but it didn't happen," he said. "So that was a pity."



The media-savvy former Dutch civil servant and climate negotiator was widely credited with raising the profile of climate issues through his frequent press encounters and his backstage lobbying of world leaders.



But his constant travel and frenetic diplomacy failed to bridge the suspicions and distrust between developing and industrial countries that barred the way to a final agreement at the climate change summit in Copenhagen in December.



People who know de Boer say he was more disheartened by the snail-paced negotiations than he was ready to admit.



"I saw him at the airport after Copenhagen," said Jake Schmidt, a climate expert for the U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council. "He was tired, worn out." The summit "clearly took a toll on him."



Deb Boer, 55, was appointed in 2006 to shepherd through an agreement to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which required industrial countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions an average 5 percent.



He said the high point of his efforts was the agreement by developing countries, reached at the 2007 conference in Bali, Indonesia, to join in efforts to contain global warming in return for financial and technical help from the wealthy nations.



The Bali meeting was so intense that during its final meeting, when he was accused of mishandling negotiating arrangements, de Boer walked off the podium in tears. He came back later to an ovation from the thousands of delegates.



Oooooh!



His assertiveness sometimes led to accusations that he was overstepping the bounds of a neutral U.N. facilitator.



"They are absolutely right. I did that because I felt the process needed that extra push," he told the AP.



When he was hired, he said, he told U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, "If you want someone to sit in Bonn and keep his mouth shut then I'm not the right person for the job."



Yet De Boer habitually put a positive spin on events. Though he occasionally chastised governments, he did it in diplomatic tones. At times when his aides were describing him as "furious" -- especially with the administration of George W. Bush -- de Boer kept his public comments so modulated that it sounded like praise.



De Boer said he will be a consultant on climate and sustainability issues for KPMG, a global accounting firm, and will be associated with several universities.



Ah ben alors, ca va, la vie est belle, Monsieur de Boer ne tombera pas comme tant d'autres, qui eux sont honnetes et capables dans leur travail, dans les affres du chomage dus a la GGGrise. Comme quoi, au moins pour certains, l'industrie verte fait des heureux.



Il est marrant cet article, c'est tout et son contraire tant en ce qui concerne les veritables raisons derreiere la decision de monsieur de Boer qu'en ce qui concerne les resultats reels de la conference.

Il y en a pour tous. C'est super et tres diplomatiques comme l'UN, quoa!

THIS week Evan Bayh, a senator from Indiana who nearly became Barack Obama’s vice-president, said he was retiring from the Senate, blaming the inability of Congress to get things done. Cynics think Mr Bayh was also worried about being beaten in November (though he was ahead in the polls). Yet the idea that America’s democracy is broken, unable to fix the country’s problems and condemned to impotent partisan warfare, has gained a lot of support lately (see article).

Certainly the system looks dysfunctional. Although a Democratic president is in the White House and Democrats control both House and Senate, Mr Obama has been unable to enact health-care reform, a Democratic goal for many decades. His cap-and-trade bill to reduce carbon emissions has passed the House but languishes in the Senate. Now a bill to boost job-creation is stuck there as well. Nor is it just a question of a governing party failing to get its way. Washington seems incapable of fixing America’s deeper problems. Democrats and Republicans may disagree about climate change and health, but nobody thinks that America can ignore the federal deficit, already 10% of GDP and with a generation of baby-boomers just about to retire. Yet an attempt to set up a bipartisan deficit-reduction commission has recently collapsed—again.

This, argue the critics, is what happens when a mere 41 senators (in a 100-strong chamber) can filibuster a bill to death; when states like Wyoming (population: 500,000) have the same clout in the Senate as California (37m), so that senators representing less than 11% of the population can block bills; when, thanks to gerrymandering, many congressional seats are immune from competitive elections; when hateful bloggers and talk-radio hosts shoot down any hint of compromise; when a tide of lobbying cash corrupts everything. And this dysfunctionality matters far beyond America’s shores. A few years ago only Chinese bureaucrats dared suggest that Beijing’s autocratic system of government was superior. Nowadays there is no shortage of leaders from emerging countries, or even prominent American businesspeople, who privately sing the praises of a system that can make decisions swiftly.

It’s alright, Abe

We disagree. Washington has its faults, some of which could easily be fixed. But much of the current fuss forgets the purpose of American government; and it lets current politicians (Mr Obama in particular) off the hook.

To begin with, the critics exaggerate their case. It is simply not true to say that nothing can get through Congress. Look at the current financial crisis. The huge TARP bill, which set up a fund to save America’s banks, passed, even though it came at the end of George Bush’s presidency. The stimulus bill, a $787 billion two-year package, made it through within a month of Mr Obama taking office. The Democrats have also passed a long list of lesser bills, from investments in green technology to making it easier for women to sue for sex discrimination.

A criticism with more weight is that American government is good at solving acute problems (like averting a Depression) but less good at confronting chronic ones (like the burden of entitlements).

Yet even this can be overstated. Mr Bush failed to reform pensions, but he did push through No Child Left Behind, the biggest change to schools for a generation. Bill Clinton reformed welfare. The system, in other words, can work, even if it does not always do so. (That is hardly unusual anywhere: for all its speed in authorising power stations, China has hardly made a success of health care lately.) On the biggest worry of all, the budget, it may well take a crisis to force action, but Americans have wrestled down huge deficits before.

America’s political structure was designed to make legislation at the federal level difficult, not easy. Its founders believed that a country the size of America is best governed locally, not nationally. True to this picture, several states have pushed forward with health-care reform. The Senate, much ridiculed for antique practices like the filibuster and the cloture vote, was expressly designed as a “cooling” chamber, where bills might indeed die unless they commanded broad support.

Broad support from the voters is something that both the health bill and the cap-and-trade bill clearly lack. Democrats could have a health bill tomorrow if the House passed the Senate version.

Mr Obama could pass a lot of green regulation by executive order. It is not so much that America is ungovernable, as that Mr Obama has done a lousy job of winning over Republicans and independents to the causes he favours. If, instead of handing over health care to his party’s left wing, he had lived up to his promise to be a bipartisan president and courted conservatives by offering, say, reform of the tort system, he might have got health care through; by giving ground on nuclear power, he may now stand a chance of getting a climate bill. Once Mr Clinton learned the advantages of co-operating with the Republicans, the country was governed better.

Redistricting the redistricters

So the basic system works; but that is no excuse for ignoring areas where it could be reformed. In the House the main outrage is gerrymandering. Tortuously shaped “safe” Republican and Democratic seats mean that the real battles are fought among party activists for their party’s nomination. This leads candidates to pander to extremes, and lessens the chances of bipartisan co-operation. An independent commission, already in existence in some states, would take out much of the sting. In the Senate the filibuster is used too often, in part because it is too easy. Senators who want to talk out a bill ought to be obliged to do just that, not rely on a simple procedural vote: voters could then see exactly who was obstructing what.

These defects and others should be corrected. But even if they are not, they do not add up to a system that is as broken as people now claim. American democracy has its peaks and troughs; attempts to reform it dramatically, such as California’s initiative craze, have a mixed history, to put it mildly. Rather than regretting how the Republicans in Congress have behaved, Mr Obama should look harder at his own use of his presidential power.

Barack Obama a encore une chance si les choses s'arrangent pour lui (comprenez si les chiffres du chomage diminuent) d'etre reelu, mais s'il force le passage d'Obamacare dont, faut-il le repeter, la majorite des Americains ne veulent pas (d'autant que ces derniers ne pourront pas beneficier des avantages avant plusieurs annees alors qu'ils verront leurs taxes augmenter tres rapidement) il sait parfaitement que la question d'un deuxieme mandat ne se pose meme pas. Le POTUS (ainsi que Nancy d'ailleurs) a deja menace de faire passer la loi coute que coute mais meme avec un elastique autour de lui, il n'est pas pres a sauter.

Quant au systeme, il fonctionne bien, enfin au moins partiellement, puisque les Representants et les Senateurs Democrates qui refusent de voter POUR le projet de loi ne le font que parce qu'ils savent qu'ils ne seront pas reelus s'ils agissent contre le souhait de leurs electeurs. (quand je dis qu'en tant que citoyen lamba nous pouvons faire pression avec deux choses: notre bulletin de vote et notre dollar (ou plus exactement ou nous choisissons de le depenser).

Maintenant, attendons de voir si ces messieus, dames arrivent a travailler ensemble et on ne pourra plus rien reprocher au systeme.

Avec beaucoup de chance, mais ca n'est pas impossible, en novembre prochain les Republicains pourraient peut-etre recuperer 1 des 2 chambres du Congres, le POTUS comprendra-t-il alors qu'il est temps de negocier avec la partie adverse, ce qu'il avait promis tout au long de sa campagne? A ce jour, la direction Democrate (le POTUS, Pelosi et Reid en tete) a fait preuve d'arrogance et a ainsi perdu 1 annee de la vie des Americains et du redressement economique du pays, resultant, le jour de l'anniversaire de l'"avenement" du POTUS, en la perte de la majorite qualifiee au Senat, Scott Brown etant elu pour remplacer Ted Kennedy en janvier dernier. (Je suppose que lorsque la teneur de cette soiree sera relatee dans les memoires qu'il ne manquera pas d'ecrire apres avoir quitte la Maison Blanche).

AP

Feb. 18: President Obama speaks at a fundraiser for Sen. Michael Bennet in Denver.

President Obama is working on health care legislation intended to reconcile differences between House and Senate Democrats that could be attached to a budget bill and avoid a Republican filibuster, according to a published report.

The president's proposal, which is still being written, will be posted on the Internet by Monday morning, senior administration officials and Congressional aides told the New York Times.

By piggybacking the legislation onto a budget bill, Democrats would be able to advance the bill with a simple majority of just 51 votes, averting a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

The White House signaled Thursday that an aggressive, all-Democratic strategy for overhauling the nation's health system remains a serious option, even as Obama invites Republicans to next week's televised summit to seek possible compromises.

"It will be a reconciliation bill," the Times quoted a Democratic aide as saying. "If Republicans don't come with any substantial offers, this is what we would do."

The administration's stance could set the stage for a political showdown, with Democrats struggling to enact the president's top domestic priority and Republicans trying to block what many conservatives see as government overreach.

Obama's plan, like the House and Senate bills, would expand coverage to some 30 million, require most Americans to carry insurance or face financial penalties, and block insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, the Times reported.

One Capitol Hill Democrat told the Times abortion remains "a wild card."

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Thursday that Obama plans to have a health proposal that "will take some of the best ideas and put them into a framework" ahead of the Feb. 25 summit.

Obama has said he is open to Republican ideas for changing the health care system. But many Democrats seriously doubt GOP leaders will support compromises that could draw enough lawmakers from both parties to create a bipartisan majority.

If next week's meeting does not break the logjam, congressional Democrats will face a tough choice.

They can pass a highly diluted health care bill or nothing at all, which would send them into the November elections with a high-profile failure despite their control of Congress and the White House.

Or they can use the aggressive and contentious tactic, known as reconciliation, to pass a far-reaching health care bill in the Senate without having to face the GOP. Democrats lost their ability to block filibusters when Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown won a Senate seat last month.

Both parties have used reconciliation rules in the past. But Republicans have practically dared Democrats to do so on health care, citing polls showing significant opposition to the legislation.

It's unclear whether the House or Senate can muster the necessary votes. Democrats, who now hold 255 of the House's 435 seats, drew only one GOP ally when the House passed its health care bill, 220-215, last November. Since then, one Democrat who voted for the bill has resigned, one has died and a third plans to leave office Feb. 28. Moreover, changes meant to meet Senate demands could peel away enough liberals on one end, and party centrists on the other, to cause the revised bill to fail.

In the Senate, Democrats control 59 seats, and reconciliation rules require only a simple majority. But several Democratic senators have expressed discomfort or outright opposition to using the rules to thwart filibusters on health care.

The White House has invited Republicans to bring their own proposals, but GOP leaders have treated the event warily at best.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Thursday, "a productive, bipartisan conversation on health care starts with a clean sheet of paper." His office labeled next week's meeting the "summit of all fears."

But at least one moderate Republican was optimistic about the session.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said if the summit succeeds, a bipartisan bill could be put together and passed within six weeks. "My advice to our Republican leadership is we should view this as a good faith effort and go in there with a consensus list of provisions that we could support and that would make a difference," she said in an interview with The Associated Press.

House Democrats are insisting on several changes to the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve, before Brown was elected to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. The changes include reducing or eliminating a proposed tax on generous employer-provider health plans, and eliminating a Medicaid subsidy aimed only at Nebraska.

Also, some House Democrats who oppose legalized abortion are demanding that the Senate's more permissive language on the topic be replaced by the House provisions. It was unclear Thursday how that might be achieved.

The cost of the legislation -- about $1 trillion over 10 years -- would be paid for through Medicare cuts and a series of tax increases. House officials said Democratic leaders are not yet pressing wary colleagues to back a health care bill under the special procedural rules. That could happen soon, however, if next week's summit fails to produce a bipartisan breakthrough.

House congressional aides said they expect leaders such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to tell colleagues that using all their parliamentary muscle to pass a health care bill -- even if it triggers withering criticism from the right -- is preferable to facing voters empty-handed this fall.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19. The Approval Index has been lower only on one day during Barack Obama’s thirteen months in office (see trends). The previous low came on December 22 as the Senate was preparing to approve its version of the proposed health care legislation. The current lows come as the President is once again focusing attention on the health care legislation.

Currently, 39% of voters nationwide favor the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats. Fifty-eight percent (58%) are opposed. Only 35% believe Congress should pass health care reform before the upcoming midterm elections anyway. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Congress should wait until voters select new congressional representatives in November.
If the proposed health care plan becomes law, 78% of voters expect it will cost more than projected. Voters overwhelmingly believe passage of the plan will increase the federal deficit and lead to middle-class tax hikes. Most of those with insurance fear that they could be forced to change their coverage if the health care legislation passes.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

In his new book, In Search of Self-Governance, Scott Rasmussen notes that while designing our system of government James Madison “recognized something that just about everybody in Washington tries to forget. The government does not run the country. It is one institution among many that makes a self-governing society work.”

Center Ryan Kesler dived on the ice in front of a defender and managed to knock the puck into an empty net after Canadian goalie Martin Brodeur left the ice to allow his team a one-man advantage in the last minute of the most anticipated event thus far in the 2010 Olympic Games — U.S. vs. Canada in hockey.

The win wasn't for a medal. It only determines seeding in the medal round.

But it was an excruciating blow to a country that is already wondering if the millions of dollars taxpayers spent on the "Own the Podium" program was just a big waste of cash. It seems, after all, that it's the Americans who own the podium, even if Canadians are footing the bill.

"USA Hockey has come a long way," said forward Patrick Kane. "Yeah, we were probably underdogs, but we have a good mix of players."

All of the players relished not only the opportunity to make a statement about U.S. hockey, but also to play in an atmosphere that rivals most NHL playoff games.

"For us, it's a once in a lifetime opportunity to play USA vs. Canada," Kane said.
Most players credited goalie Ryan Miller (who plays for the NHL's Buffalo Sabres) for edging an aggressive, skilled squad.

"He did what we expected him to do," said Brian Rafalski, who scored two goals and makes a living playing for the Detroit Red Wings. "Hopefully, we don't need him to do it that well again."

Added Zach Parise, "He's unbelievable. He bailed us out a lot. That was a lot of fun."

Rafalski scored just 41 seconds into the game with a slap shot that bounced off Brodeur's stick. The Canadians bounced back when Eric Staal scored to tie things up. It was Rafalski at 9:15 in the first period who scored again, this time unassisted.

"He has the hot stick," said Miller, who had 45 saves to Brodeur's 23 saves.
The teams exchanged goals with no one really gaining a momentum advantage until Kesler knocked in the final score.

While the players vowed to "keep the win in perspective," Rafalski did say the victory in the much-hyped match meant a lot to the squad's younger guys.

"For these young guys, I think it was a great confidence boost," he said. "It's good for them to see that we're capable of playing any team in any atmosphere. It does set the bar pretty high for us going into the tournament."

Miller said he knows very well how much the Canadian fans were looking forward to defeating the U.S. Sunday.

"The crowd just made it more exciting," Miller said, smiling. "Walking around town the last few nights, there was some trash-talking going on. I had to bury my head when I was out walking around with my family. No, it was pretty polite trash talk, we are in Canada after all. It was like, 'Hey, there's Ryan Miller the U.S. goalie. And then his friends would gather around and say, "Go, Canada, Go!' "
In truth, Miller loves playing in front of a Canadian crowd.

"They know the game; they respect the game," he said. "I think that's what makes it great about coming here to play."

He wasn't, however, going to be gloating over the victory.

"I'm going to go get some dinner and lay low," he said grinning again. "These are all pressure games from here on out. And you never know, we might see Canada again."