"Old soldiers never die, they just fade away."

So said Douglas MacAurthur, the American general who earned fame in the Korean and Second World Wars.

But what happens to old politicians? Well, if you look at some of our former Prime Ministers of late, it seems they neither die nor fade away, but rather ascend to a kind of corporate heaven of their own making.

They step out of office flush with connections and contacts, which they then parlay into consulting fees, corporate directorships, commissions...in short, a lot of cash.

And power. They often end up with more influence as brokers than they had as politicians. It makes you wonder if the PM's job represents more of a corporate apprenticeship than the pinnacle of public service.

If you think about it, the role of Canadian Prime Minister carries with it a lot of networking opportunities. Imagine all of the exclusive clubs that Canada belongs to, each of them presenting a chance to hobnob with a different set of world leaders.

Look it from any PM's perspective. We're in the Group of Eight, which gives you access to the leaders of the world's major economies. We're in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which puts you in the same room as the heads of most of Europe. We're in the Organization of American States, which takes care of Latin and South America. Then there's the British Commonwealth, which lets you schmooze with a vertable smorgazboard of honchos; Caribbean leaders, Australia, New Zeleand, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, just to name a few, plus half the dictators in Africa. And of course La Francaphonie, the assembly of French-speaking nations, which gives you many of the other African heads and a handful of Arab strongmen to boot.

Think of how many names you'd have in your little black book after nine or ten years of this kind of glad-handing.

Let's look at the last two guys to have held the office of Prime Minister for any length of time; Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien.

Not long after leaving office in 1993, Mulroney scored a $300,000 consulting fee from German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber. That's small potatoes nowadays for the boy from Baie Comeau. Mulroney has since made multi-millions through various commissions and directorships.

He's now got a swank home in Palm Beach, Florida, to go with his Montreal mansion; a new base from which to move through the ranks of the mega-powerful. Well-connected to the Bush dynasty, as well as various other international moguls, Mulroney has never been riding so high.

According to author Peter C. Newman, Mulroney "nurtured and expanded his relationships among America's corporate elite while he was in office." Since then he "has emerged as a major player in the shadowy world of international geopolitics, constantly consulted by the rich and powerful, who hand him lucrative assignments and endow him with greater global clout than he had as Prime Minister of Canada."

Peter Munk, who presides over the gold mining giant Barrick and real estate powerhouse TrizecHahn, told Newman that Mulroney "has got this unbelievable network that he has spent years and years developing." (Newman also quotes Munk as saying that Mulroney "knows every dictator in the world on a first name basis," but Munk has since denied making the comment.) Munk shrewdly nabbed Mulroney for the boards of both Barrick and TrizecHahn in 1993, on the heels of the latter's departure from offce. They were the first of several such appointments for the former Conservative Prime Minister.

As for Chrétien, he was out of office for all of two months when he took off to China to do some moving and shaking.

"By moving so quickly into the Chinese business world," wrote Globe and Mail reporter Geoffrey York last February, "Mr. Chrétien will be able to capitalize on his extensive political dealings with Chinese leaders over the past decade. As Prime Minister he visited China six times, led two Team Canada trade and investment missions to the country and met frequently with its top leaders."

Even more recently, Chrétien landed himself an advisory position with a firm called PetroKazakhstan. The firm is based in Calgary, but, as its name implies, it does much of its business in the former Soviet republic. A quick glance at a map will reveal that Kazakhstan is located right beside China, and in fact PetroKazakhstan is actively seeking to export oil to China.

It turns out that most of Chrétien's February trip to China was organized by the China International Trust and Investment Corporation (CITIC). CITIC is a huge commercial arm of the Chinese government, involved globally in everything from energy to finance to real estate to military hardware. It's directors report to China's State Council, the nation's executive ruling body. Not a bad contact to have if you're trying to navigate through a Byzantine bureaucracy en route to a massive and potentially lucrative industrial and consumer market.

Perhaps it's impolite to suggest that Chrétien was getting a head start on his new job while he was still in the old one, but the fact is he toured China just before stepping down late last year, and made a point of meeting with Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao on his last day in office on December 12th, 2003.

And Chrétien is not new to the game of marketing his own "judgment and experience" to well-heeled corporate clients. Between 1986, when he quit public office, and 1990, when he re-entered the political arena as Liberal leader, he made good money providing his services to various business interests in Ottawa. His current dealings in China can be set alongside a number of positions he has landed for himself in the brief time since he left politics. So far he's ensconsed himself with three separate law firms, each of whom presumably hopes to benefit from his circle of influence.

Is any of this illegal? Oh, heaven forbid. Keep in mind that most of these guys begin their long politi-corporate careers in law school; the smarter ones tend to know exactly where the line is drawn and which side of it to stay on. And there's nothing wrong with making a buck, even if it is on top of a pretty lucrative pension package paid for by the Canadian public.

But is there not something rank about the idea of the highest office in the land serving as a mere stepping stone, a chance to make some contacts and fatten the rolodex? We go to the polling station looking for statesmen on the ballot, but what we get are a bunch of careerists climbing the corporate ladder. A ladder in which the office of Prime Minister appears simply to be another step, and one that's notably below the top rung.

Not to mention the example this sets to politicians at lower levels of office. We are continually told not to be cynical about politics, that there are many good elected representatives seeking to serve the public. Fine. But there also seem to be a hell of a lot of them who see a political role as another way of wrangling invites to various high-rollers' backrooms.

All of which provides some food for thought as we head to the polls on June 28th. If you're a little unsure of who to vote for, if you're a bit uncertain as to who can best handle various issues, relax. After all, it's not like you're electing a future leader.

You're merely electing a future lobbyist.

You can find a lot of people in Vancouver who remember the Canucks' 1994 drive to the Stanley Cup final. Far fewer seem to recall that the Canucks made an earlier trip to the final in 1982 with a team which, on paper at least, was much less gifted.

Of course, it all depends on how you define the word 'gifted.' The Canucks opened the 1982 playoffs against the Calgary Flames. The Flames were not yet the powerhouse they would become later in the decade, but some of the main ingredients were already in place, key among them being sniper Lanny MacDonald.

The Canucks had mounted a late season winning streak, and edged out the Flames at the wire to claim home ice advantage. It was their first playoff appearance in a few years, and the Vancouver fans were far from convinced that it would lead anywhere; the building was only about three-quarters full for the opening game.

The tone of the series was set in the first five seconds. Flames enforcer Willi Plett lined up at centre ice for the opening faceoff against Canuck left winger Curt Fraser. Fraser was smaller than Plett, but he was a fearsome fighter. As soon as the puck was dropped they started to scrap.

It was a short fight. Fraser ended it by bringing a quick but lethal right hand over his head and down on Plett, sending the bigger man to his knees. After that the Canucks, though out-chanced, held on to win three straight games in a best of five series.

Lanny MacDonald, shadowed mercilessly by his former Maple Leaf linemate Dave 'Tiger' Williams, could not mount much of a threat. In fact, it was Williams who was the overtime hero of the crucial second game. What did the Flames do about Williams, about his hounding of their star player?

What could they do? Curt Fraser, not even the biggest of the Canucks that year, had taken care of the Flames enforcer in the opening seconds of the series. The Flames had lost an edge to the Canucks, and they knew it.

I thought of all this while watching the debacle of a hockey game that unfolded a couple of nights ago between the Canucks and the Colorado Avalanche.

It was clear from the outset that the Canucks, seething since Colorado forward Steve Moore knocked Markus Nasland out for three games with a concussion, wanted to make a physical statement on their home ice.

Unfortunately, they had no Curt Fraser this time around. Brad May gamely took on Avalanche man-mountain Peter Worrell, but it was a stalemate (not a bad achievement for May considering the size difference). The feisty Matt Cooke had a go with Moore himself, but it was Moore who frankly looked like he had the upper hand.

The Canucks, like the 1982 Flames, seemed to sense that they had lost an edge, that they could not make the statement they wanted to make, at least not with any kind of 'exclamation point' (to use Colorado coach Tony Granato's expression). The result was a quick and ugly ungluing, first of their defence, then of their senses. Todd Bertuzzi's attack on Moore had the air of a crazed motorist, frustrated that the guy who cut him off wasn't getting a ticket.

***

Steve Moore's hit on Naslund, the one that set in motion this sorry series of events, was a tough one to deal with. Technically, it may not have been a penalty. The referees policing that game didn't think so, and neither did the league when it reviewed the incident. Nonetheless, it was very close to crossing a line, perhaps not in the strict sense of the rule book, but in a way less easy to define. Naslund may have been on track for a league scoring title (the first in team history). And who knows what long-term implications it will have for Naslund's play; how much of a step will he loose if he needs to look over his shoulder, or let up a bit when chasing the puck?

Add to that the fact that Moore, a so-called marginal player, has lately developed a bit of a ‘niche’ for himself, as one of his Colorado teammates put it. Consider the following excerpt from the March 4, 2004 edition of the St. Petersburg Times, a Florida paper that reports on the Tampa Bay Lightning:

“Lightning coach John Tortorella called for league MVP candidate Martin St. Louis to receive more protection from referees ....what really got the coach steamed was when the 5-foot-8 St. Louis was cross-checked from behind into the boards by Colorado’s Steve Moore during the first period of Monday’s 3-0 Tampa Bay Victory.”

Cross checked from behind into the boards. Sounds dangerous.

This is not to suggest that the devastating injury inflicted by Bertuzzi on Moore was justified. I don’t know, at this point, how long Bertuzzi will be suspended, but I believe it should at least run into next season.

Nonetheless, there is some context to be considered in all of this. Hockey, with its combination of violence, speed and finesse, is a unique game. Skilled players are both an asset to be protected and, if they are on the other team, a weapon to be neutralized. There will always be agitators like Moore, and they will always be called to account by the enforcers on the teams they oppose. Perhaps the crucial difference between Moore and Bertuzzi is that Moore knew how far he could go without crossing the line. Tragically, the more powerful Bertuzzi wasn’t so smart.

That intangible line is ultimately all there is. Hockey players need to stay on the right side of it. No official, no amount of NHL legislation or protective gear can make that call for them.

***

Now we must put up with the requisite outpouring of media angst. Sportscasters who usually gush over hits and fights during highlight reels like ten year-olds describing their favourite scenes in Lord of the Rings are suddenly solemn and censoring. Newspaper columnists are sermonizing on how goonery will soon lead to hockey's demise, just like it did after Marty McSorley’s hit on Donald Brashear in 2000, or after Dale Hunter’s blindside on Pierre Turgeon in 1993, or after Wayne Maki’s exchange with Ted Green in 1968, or after Eddie Shore helped fracture Ace Bailey’s skull in 1933....

And worst of all, we get the typically Canadian explosion of neurotica over the fact that our game is getting bad coverage in the American media. We live in a nation that pines for American attention the way a little girl hopes to get noticed by a teen idol. But now it’s all ruined! Our heartthrob is looking at us all right, but not because we’re sexy....it’s because our nose is bleeding.

See what you’ve done, Todd Bertuzzi!? SEE WHAT YOU’VE DONE!?

Look folks, I’ll let you in on something. If the U.S.A. rejects hockey, it will not be because they’re squeamish about violence. We’re talking about America, for crying out loud.

Sports tend to thrive professionally where they also thrive at a grassroots level. Hockey does not exist at the grassroots level in much of the U.S. for the simple reason that it’s a winter sport, and a large chuck of the American population lives in a very warm climate. It’s a bit difficult to build a backyard rink for your kid if you live in Scottsdale, or Fort Worth, or Baton Rouge.

Hockey has always been a regional game in the States, and it likely always will be.

* * *

After beating the Flames, the Canucks of 1982 plowed through the Los Angeles Kings and the Chicago Blackhawks en route to the final. Both teams had some great stars; Marcel Dionne for the Kings, Denis Savard for the Hawks. But in both cases the Canucks prevailed. They were grittier. Indeed, a defining moment in the Blackhawk series was another fight, one in which Canuck Ron Delorme pasted Hawk enforcer Grant Mulvey (why? because Mulvey had taken a run at the artful Thomas Gradin).

And them came the New York Islanders, a dynasty with a curious mix of skill and brawn. There was the heavyweight 30-plus goal man Clark Gillies and the tough but talented Brian Trottier; there was the maniacal Billy Smith, and the great Denis Potvin, always ready with an eloquent quote and a career-ending hipcheck.

But the hero (and Conn Smythe winner) that year was Mike Bossy. Bossy was dogged by Tiger Williams as relentlessly as MacDonald had been earlier in the playoffs. Years later, I saw the two of them interviewed on the same T.V. show, via satellite. Bossy still clearly hated Williams’ guts.

But it was Bossy who delivered the exclamation point in that series, in extra time during game one. With only a few seconds left in the first overtime session, Bossy intercepted a pass at the Canucks’ blue line, took a few steps, and fired a missile of a shot over the shoulder of goalie Richard Brodeur.

It signalled the end of the Canucks' playoff drive as definitively as Curt Fraser’s punch had started it.

That the statement had been made by one of the game’s most gentlemanly players was a lesson in itself.

Lost in the local newspapers’ laudatory coverage of the latest provincial budget was a new poll that puts the BC NDP level with the BC Liberals at 40% support among decided voters. It’s the highest the NDP has been in the polls since 1996; a stunning return for a party that was almost annihilated at the last election.

What is striking about the poll is a large disparity between male and female voters. About 50% of men favour the Liberals, with about 30% opposing. Among women, almost the exact opposite is the case. It’s women, to put it simply, who are bringing the New Democrats back from the dead.

Of course, the pundits trot out the usual explanation; women are concerned about ‘soft’ NDP-ish issues, like health care and social programs, while men are focused on Liberal guy stuff like the economy. This pat explanation always struck me as a bit lame, and I’m convinced there’s something more underlying the recent poll results.

I think the numbers can partly be accounted for by the fact that the sectors of society that are most often on the receiving end of the Campbell government's more belligerent actions tend to be female-dominated. One example is hospital workers. Laying off unionized health support workers and then hiring them back at half the rate of pay in contracted-out arrangements was something we’re supposed to see as good management. But we know by now that when it comes to watching your tax dollars, this is a government that picks its spots.

A Prince George BC Liberal party supporter gets a $400,000 debt written off by the government. The provincial Auditor General investigates incidents wherein fish farm operators who have contributed to the BC Liberal party have had government penalties and back rent written off. The boys club of a construction industry--the same guys who helped bring us the leaky condo crisis--are in line for multi-millions in Olympic construction contracts. Oh, by the way, it appears that Dick Pound, the former Vice President of the International Olympic Committee, has accused Gordon Campbell of "hijacking" the process by which the CEO of the 2010 Olympic organizing committee is selected. Campbell made sure that an associate of his of got the job. I guess he needs one of his own boys in place when it comes to handing out all that public money. Is it a coincidence that the BC Liberals draw their political fixers and bagmen from the same sleazy ranks as the scandal-plagued federal Liberal party?

Think about all of this, and use it as context for the Liberal assertion that pushing down health care workers' wages has to do with sound business practice.

“All they do is clean,” the Liberals will tell you of the hospital workers. No need to pay a unionized wage for that. But I can say from regrettably extensive first-hand observation that they do a hell of a lot more than just clean. Much of the day-to-day (or hour-to-hour) care of patients, especially those in long-term wards, is conducted by support workers. They're the ones that tend to the feeding, hygiene and even the spirits of many of the patients, and if you think this is an 'anyone can do it' kind of job, try it yourself some time. Far from being a case of sound management, it's simply part of a short-term plan to help Finance Minister Gary Collins parade a pre-election, headline-grabbing ‘balanced’ budget, a feat that could have been accomplished with relative ease had Collins not jumped the gun with an extravagant and premature tax cut on the heels of taking office.

Another example is the public vilification of the ferry workers. Again, the "all they do is cook/clean" argument comes up. That kind of slag is obviously not aimed the guys on the lower deck who are directing your car, but at the largely female staff in the passenger areas. Funny that you rarely hear that all a teamster does is lift boxes. But then the teamsters are mostly guys, and they would likely fight back hard. This, unexpectedly, is also what the ferry workers did. But not before they were subjected to a level of vitriol like something out of Salem Massachusetts, circa 1692. How much of the derision they receive was made a little sharper by the fact that their leader is a woman? The local papers, sneering as ever, made a special point of letting the public know that she was once one of the rank-and-file table-clearing wenches. Doesn't the bitch know her place? I wonder how many women sat quietly in front of the TV set during that dispute, maybe not particularly sympathetic to the union, but recognizing a contemptuous and nasty tone in how its members were being portrayed.

There is something overbearing about this government; a pushy, bullying smugness embodied by Gordon Campbell himself. The only time anyone has every really liked this guy, ironically, is when he appeared humbled and penitent in the wake of his drunk driving conviction. Now he's back to his old prick self, pushing an agenda that dishes out goodies to his cronies and platitudes about making 'tough choices' to everyone else. It's possible, even likely, that the poll numbers--and perhaps the gender disparity they reveal--will change over the next little while. For now, though, it appears that it's the men in this province who are being seduced by the soft stuff, Olympic promises and the like, while the women are the ones who recognize the hard realities of a society that leans on them for some of its dirtiest jobs, and then looks to them first when the belt-tightening begins.