Given that Tony is stressed and exhausted, he can be excused for being a little edgy. It seems that the entire weight of this massive cultural and political shift in the way America perceives its heroes has come crashing down on him, not to mention watching the violent death of a friend at the hands of a weapon that he sanctioned. He can be forgiven for being less than diplomatic to a younger man who can be immature and has a tendency to speak before he thinks. However, again, Stark knows exactly who he's dealing with here. This was a man that he stated that he wanted to stand with him as his protégé, a man who gave up his greatest source of protection, his secret identity, in order to stand at his side. Tony has given him a lot, but Peter has also sacrificed a lot, and so has his family, and if things continue (barring a retcon - whoops), everyone who has known him will pay. May and Mary Jane are walking around with big targets on their backs, and even the students that Peter teaches are vulnerable (see concurrent issues of Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man which will be discussed later). He knows how skittish Peter is about his decisions. He knows from his historic dealings with Spider-Man just how emotional and volatile he can be. He owes Peter answers. And yet, he does nothing, nothing to make Peter comfortable with the choices that have been made. In fact, he even starts threatening him! But, you see this is Fascist Tony.

And here we have one of the greatest incongruities about Civil War, which is the portrayal of Tony Stark during this whole crisis. Not being a regular Iron Man reader, I can't tell you how Tony Stark would really behave but I do have an idea how a tortured recovering alcoholic might react, but that's another story. Millar portrays Stark as still in touch with his core values and doing what he believes is right, but unable to completely control the forces that have been set in motion. JMS, on the other hand, preferred to portray Stark as a conniving fascist with blood dripping from his fangs and a swastika tattooed on his armor. Instead of trying to talk to his so-called "protege" on a level he can relate to, to bring him on his side, Fascist Tony is working overtime determined to alienate him.

And then there's the "Uncle Ted" story that Mr. Fantastic tells Peter, about how his Uncle, a creative type, was jailed and ruined because he refused to cooperate with the House Un-American Activities Committee in ratting out anyone that he suspected of being a Communist. How this relates to the events of Civil War is a bit odd. One reason it's odd is that it implies that Mr. Fantastic is in his 60's, as Reed tells Peter that Ted personally took him for walks and ice cream. Yet it was 1947 that the Committee (HUAC) held their first hearings on Communist influence in the motion picture industry. The contempt of Congress citations against "The Hollywood Ten" (Ted received a contempt of Congress citation) were handed down in 1948. A second round of hearings was held in 1951 and 1952, although the Hollywood Blacklist was not broken until 1960, and sadly, destroyed many lives, careers, and families when legitimate concerns about Communist infiltration were abused by power seeking demagogues. It's curious that this particularly aspect of the story was allowed to stand by Joe Quesada, since he is fanatical about Marvel characters appearing to be "young." And as a point of clarification, Reed mentions Joe McCarthy and HUAC in the same sentence. While they did coexist in the same period of history, it should be clarified that HUAC was a House committee, and had nothing to do with McCarthy. "Tail Gunner Joe" was a US Senator, and died in 1957, years after being censured by the Senate, revealed for the nut-job that he was, and drinking himself to death. Just so you have all of the facts.

It's hard to take up a side in the debate that Reed frames - obey an unjust law and be safe and snug in your warm little bed, or disobey it and go to jail. I don't have any answer, because there really isn't any. The American colonists refused to obey the law in the 1770's and we have the USA as a result. And while Hitler and the Nazis were the legitimate political authority in Germany in the 1930's and '40's - I don't think anyone is going to argue that they were "right" and those who would argue so frighten me. But he is also right that the law keeps us from tearing each other to pieces in a survival of the fittest game, and that the stability of society depends on us obeying it even when we don't like it, and using nonviolent means to change what we don't like. Although JMS portrays Stark as a fascist, he does show Reed to be somewhat conflicted and tortured, knowing from personal experience that while the law protects, it can also ruthlessly crush. Still, I'm a little confused as to the point that Peter is making when he tells Reed "I would have liked him but you - you loved him," in reference to Ted. If someone can shed some light on this for me, please do so.

I'll deal with Pete's reaction to the Negative Zone Gulag a little later. Soon after his field trip there, he sneaks into May's and MJ's bedrooms, and tells them they have to get out of Avengers Tower, that he's made a "terrible, terrible" (must be channeling Charles Barkley) mistake and that he's been on the wrong side and has to set things right. O.K. - let's take a moment here. In the beginning of this story arc three issues ago, Peter asks MJ and May for their advice and counsel on whether or not to reveal his secret identity - because - as he states - it affects them too. Yet, when he decides to go on the run - he doesn't solicit their opinion or feedback, or frame his angst and doubts for them. Nope - he's made up both his mind and THEIR minds for them and they are going to go on the run and live like fugitives and face the risk of imprisonment! That's looking out for your family. That's being "responsible." It’s one thing to go on the lam on "principle" when it’s just you that you have to worry about and fend for – but when you drag your wife and your septuagenarian mother figure along with you – you turn from principled to stupid. When you have a family, life isn't just about you anymore. And make no mistake, Peter Parker is acting stupid.

As I was writing this – I wondered if that kind of thinking on my part was exactly where Marvel and I part company, why they want to write their characters “Young! Young!” and don’t want old people like me reading their comics (but they do want old people buying those overpriced statues and coffee table books. $50 for a Spider-Man coffee table book. Indeed. What 8-12 year old, which is the ideal age market that Marvel craves - is going to fork over the money for that when they could buy the hottest video game or two on sale at Wal-Mart?)

Working within the system to try to effect change is an old person strategy. Sucking it up and making the best of it because it isn’t just about you any more, but your family, is old people thinking. Young people are more likely to do something for principle, more likely to make rash, irresponsible decisions – and we accept that because they’re young and don’t know any better (I’m generalizing here, folks). Young people take those exciting chances that let us tell these kinds of stories. That’s why they want Spidey at 25 or less and single – because then he can do those things and be forgiven. At 30 and married, he comes across as foolish and irresponsible.

So let's just eliminate that problem by having Spider-Man make a deal with the devil and do away with his marriage.

Whoops - I'm getting ahead of myself.

What's also interesting is that Tony is clearly eavesdropping on the conversation, because after Peter tells May and MJ what a terrible mistake he's made - Iron Man comes crashing through the walls and tackles him! He doesn't wait for Spidey to actually leave the premises, which, for example is Shoplifting Crimebusting 101 when you think someone is stealing - you wait for them to actually leave the store with their loot. How does Tony know, for example, that May or MJ won't talk him down? He doesn't even give either one of them the opportunity! Peter has committed no crime yet. But, Stark attacks him when all Peter has done thus far is voice that he thinks he's on the wrong side. Which, of course, if you're trying to make Tony Stark look like a fascist and make the pro-registration forces look like goose stepping Nazis in order to support your perspective, that's what you do. And don't even start with the arguments that there wasn't time for this because the story needed to move along - this is a 7-part story that had already been padded from an original planned 6 parts and features two whole pages of a sniper falling asleep. "There wasn't time" will not work as an answer here.

In Civil War #5, after the initial tackling, Iron Man tries to reason with Spider-Man. Spidey even brings up Bill Foster's death, and Stark shows the proper remorse, stating that something like that would not happen again. He also tells Peter that there were forces within SHIELD and the Government that wanted to outlaw all superhuman activities, and that registration is a compromise. And here's the kicker - Iron Man tells Spidey that locking people up in the Negative Zone is only a temporary measure, because if you put them in Ryker's - they'll be out in five minutes. This conflicts with Tony's "F**k the Constitution" attitude in Amazing Spider-Man. At the end, he's begging Peter to come to his senses, but Spidey clocks him anyway. Amazing Spider-Man #536 then follows the battle onto the streets, and Spidey eventually finds his way into the sewers on the run.

Back to Civil War which picks up the action in the sewers, and things get worse for Spider-Man, not the least because he winds up getting his ass handed to him by Z-List supervillains Jack O’Lantern and the Jester. WTF? These losers have no business lasting five seconds with Spider-Man, regardless of how much hallucinogens they shove up his snoot, which then makes him say stupid things like "did you know my girlfriend died of a broken neck?" What the hell? Spidey's been gassed by experts (namely a multitude of Goblins and Mysterios – hey, that’s like a cereal) – so this is just stupid. And like some helpless little schoolgirl he has to be rescued by the Punisher. But I confess, Jack O'Lantern's pumpkin head exploding after taking a shot by the Punisher WAS cool.

By this time, the Iron Spidey suit has been destroyed and Peter is back in his traditional red and blues, courtesy of Aunt May grabbing an old costume along with her Polident as she vacated Avengers Tower. He finds Captain America and the rebel forces, but figures that the night isn't complete until he makes a sanctimonious speech on the nightly news. In Amazing Spider-Man #536, he pops into the news studio and takes center stage. This is his chance to state his case before the world, to tell everyone what is wrong with the Superhuman Registration Act and the direction that the country is going. And what does he talk about?

• Does he talk about watching Bill Foster get a hole blasted in his chest, and how that shattered his faith in the ability of the pro-registration forces to control the events they set in motion? No.

• Does he talk about clones and other genetic monstrosities being cooked up by the pro-registration forces to subdue the rebelling heroes? No.

• Does he talk about the deals with the devils that the pro-registration forces are making - how they are enlisting murderers and thieves to bring in heroes whose only crime was not registering with the government? No.

• Does he talk about Tony Stark's or Reed Richard's obscene profits on the construction of the Negative Zone Gulag? No.

• Does he talk about just how wrong-headed it is to force everyone with superpowers to sign up for government service? And what a slippery slope that is? No.

These are all tangible arguments, things that people can grab onto and debate, clear examples of the apparent abuse and misuse of power. But what is Spidey really upset about? The violation of supervillain civil rights, which is probably the weakest argument of all the ones he could have chosen to talk about largely because it's the least persuasive of the ones to use on the American people!

Spidey's speech is nonstarter. For one, over and over and over again, we have read Spider-Man comics where he has railed at the futility of fighting supervillains only to have them keep coming back time and time again. And is his memory so short that he forgot how and why the New Avengers were formed in the first place? It was because of a massive prison break in which nearly 50 supervillains escaped and he got the crap beat out of him and his arm broken like a little pussy trying to hold back the ones who didn't get away! For the sake of argument – if the Gulag worked, then that takes care of one of his biggest gripes, doesn’t it? And if his colorful foes are all holed up in the Negative Zone, then he can dedicate both of his identities working on projects that will benefit the whole of humanity, rather than punching out the same band of lunatics over and over again. Oddly enough, that's something the late Ezekiel Sims (a JMS creation, by the way) made reference to when he told Spider-Man that he had a long way to go before becoming a true guardian of the people.

And not only that, but this whole mess with registration started because of a supervillain on the run. Yes, Speedball and the New Warriors screwed up big time and got in over their heads - but Stamford wouldn't have happened if Nitro and the other supervillains had remained locked up in prison where they belonged. Spidey's argument is completely disingenuous because he's jettisoning all of the strong arguments that would support his position with the American people for the one that they're not going to give a rat's ass about!

And here's something else to put in your pipe and smoke. If anyone would have been emotionally impacted by unchecked and unrestrained mutant (or superhero) power – wouldn’t it have been Spider-Man? Remember, he wanted to kill Magneto and the Witch with his bare hands in House of M when he found out that his celebrity life was all a fantasy and that they were responsible for that altered universe. He wouldn’t have agreed, at least on principle, that there really is a disadvantage to having people with that sheer amount of power walking around unchecked? But no – he never mentions it, because the writers want to lead you into an already pre-determined direction, and not one indigenous to either the characters or the situation.

This speech gets at the core of my problems with this story arc in Amazing Spider-Man. It isn't that the comics are telling a story that tackles controversial modern day issues, because that is something that literature and entertainment has always done. Gullivers Travels, for example, was a commentary reflecting Jonathan Swift's perspective on the Europe of his time. Spider-Man has always in some fashion reflected the times in which the stories were written. And Spidey, as the superhero "everyman" is the logical character to find himself smack dab in the middle of two warring ideologies. It isn't even the fact that Spider-Man makes a decision totally opposite of the one I would have made (because as I admitted - I'm old, and not the kind of reader Marvel wants) that really grates me. It's that the rationale for that decision is very, very poorly written in such a way that it is out of character. His decision, which negatively impacts the lives of the people he loves the most, is totally irresponsible and out of character for someone for whom "with great power there must also come great responsibility" is his mantra. And if you think that's bad - wait till he makes a deal with the devil (damn, I just can't help myself).

No, Spider-Man goes rogue because most of Marvel, and JMS in particular don't like George Bush and don't approve of the "War on Terror" the way it is being fought. News flash - I DON'T particularly care for the current administration either and I am NOT a Republican. I don't like to discuss politics, but just so my readers don't get the idea that my problems with this story are politically motivated - they aren't. Why else is Spidey's speech comprised of all sorts of thinly veiled references to the holding of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay - but nothing else? Is he saying that everyone who believes in law and order is a goose-stepping fascist who's willing to sell his freedom for the promise of "security"? During Spider-Man's speech he says “Some people say the most important thing in the world is that we should be safe. But I was brought up to believe that some things are worthy dying for. “ First of all, who says that the most important thing in the world is that we should be safe? Just who is saying that? Either in these comics or in the real world? I don’t recall reading or hearing that out of the lips of anyone and I consider myself fairly well informed. And if someone IS saying that - it sure as hell isn't someone I'm interested in listening to any further! Safety is not guaranteed – we all know that, except for the naïve and the opportunistic looking to make a buck. Even if you never leave your house, you can slip in the bathtub, fall down the stairs, or wind up holding the wrong end of a live electrical connection (which I nearly did once - ouch!). You're more likely to get killed behind the wheel of your own friggin' car than by a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist, and we know that. Maybe Spidey should be on TV denouncing predatory lawyers and their class action lawsuits!

What's sad is that a major reason that Peter would have realistically turned on Stark is not even touched upon in this story, because there's no indication that Peter even knows about it at the time. That's Tony making deals with some of Peter's worst enemies, specifically Norman Osborn and the Mac Gargan Venom. It is never satisfactorily explained why the pro-registration forces are resorting to alliances with some of the worst scumbags in the Marvel Universe. Talk about a public relations disaster. The world is not a very nice place, and sometimes, as the forces of law and order and diplomacy have found out over the centuries, you do have to make deals with monsters to achieve a greater good, even if you have to scrub the filth off you later. But again, this isn't really so much a logical story development as it is to pound us over the head again with just how bad and misguided the pro-registration forces are, that they would enlist the assistance of such jackals.

Can you imagine how dramatic the confrontation would have been between Peter and Stark if Spidey found out that Norman Osborn was now on the same side of the law that he was - that Osborn had received a pardon for his crimes? After all, Tony knows exactly how personal the matter of Norman Osborn is to Peter Parker. "My god, Tony! Osborn of all people! You know what he's done to me over the years? He murdered Gwen! He destroyed his own son - my best friend! Stripped my own life from me and made me believe that I was a clone – and then he murdered a man whom I considered a brother! He may have even had something to do with the stillborn death of my daughter! I know that you may have to make some deals - but why Osborn?" This isn’t a vague, philosophical, or political disagreement – Stark is making compromises with the most hated man in Peter’s life. Even Aunt May and Mary Jane, having both known Gwen and Harry, and how much they meant to Peter, would line up on his side and condemn Tony for this action. This is a rationale reason for Peter to switch sides. But, it's ignored. Spider-Man loses faith in Stark not because of Bill Foster's death, not because of the monsters he and Richards are cooking up in their labs, and not because of an alliance entered into with his greatest enemy and the man he hates most in the world. The straw that breaks the camel's back is the violation of supervillain civil rights.

O.K. I think I've made my point.

Issue #537 introduces a new element of the Kingpin, while in prison, putting out a hit on Spider-Man and whoever is with him. Now, the Kingpin has known Spider-Man for a long time - he's known that Spider-Man has survived uncounted attempts on his life from foes far more potent than a sniper. What in the world makes him believe this attempt would be any more successful than the others? This just seems like a waste of Fisk's time and money. Also, Fisk orders the takeout of Peter's loved ones as well. Now, you Daredevil fans are going to have to help me on this one - is this in or out of character for the Kingpin to do? Particularly since his own wife has been used against him before by his enemies. Wouldn't he consider murdering an old woman and another man's wife beneath him? But then again, the idea that mobsters have a sense of honor is largely a Hollywood fiction.

But we get another speech in issue #537, this one by Captain America, who recites an 8th grade lesson on Mark Twain, and Peter swoons like a schoolgirl in love – as if he has a passionate man crush on Cap. All of a sudden “it feels good to be on the right side again.”

But really – what is the “right” side? Well, JMS is making up our mind for us. Of course, it’s the side of the rebels.

Ultimately, all good and bad things, must come to an end, and Civil War #7 features the final battle between the pro and anti registration forces, beginning at the Negative Zone Gulag, and ending on the streets of New York. Frankly, the ending, with Captain America giving up and ordering his troops to stand down, while it was controversial among fans, is actually, and much to my surprise, one of the things I have the least problem with. When you think about it - it's the only logical way for the story to have ended, at least if you wanted the Marvel Universe to still be intact. The anti and pro registration forces have lined up in a dramatic free for all, and then the arrival of Prince Namor and his Atlantean Army seem to have turned the tide in favor of the anti registration forces. Of course, it is never adequately explained just why Namor comes to Cap's aid, since as a sovereign of a foreign nation, his entrance into the conflict could be seen as an act of war. Oh well, why let that get in the way of a good fight scene. Still, since the two have a history going back to World War II, it really isn't a leap of faith to assume that Namor would side with Cap over the US Government any day.

Anyway, just when Captain America has Iron Man at his mercy, civilians weary of New York being regularly demolished during superpowered grudge matches attack him. As he surveys the devastation around him, he has a moment of clarity, and realizes that winning this battle is irrelevant. Spidey notes that they were winning, and I'm sure with Namor and the Atlanteans on their side, as well as Iron Man and Clor taken down, that their victory was assured.

But then what?

They were still fugitives, still committing illegal acts. Taking down Stark and the rest of the pro-registration forces wouldn't have resulted in the government repealing the registration act and letting them go back to the days of freewheeling vigilantism. In fact, they would have proven themselves even more dangerous - and the next time, it wouldn't be fellow superheroes with conflicted feelings about taking on their friends - it would be SHIELD agents and the US military with no particular loyalties or feelings.

In other words, the war had already been lost, regardless of the outcome of the battle.

Although, how do we reconcile the conclusion of Captain America's speech about "standing by the river of truth" in Amazing Spider-Man #537, with him throwing in the towel in Civil War #7?

So, the problem was not Civil War's ending - it was the fact that it even began in the first place.

Stark proves himself to be magnanimous by convincing the government to offer amnesty to the rebelling superheroes (Reed Richards was also working at accomplishing the same - refusing to cooperate further with the government unless they gave his wife and brother in law immunity). However, inexplicably, and like a damn fool, simply because the writers deemed it so, Spidey refuses to take it. For all of the talk about power and responsibility, he has behaved like a spoiled little child who takes his toys and goes home when he finds out that the world isn't perfect. This is bad, bad writing and shows a complete lack of respect for the character.

In Amazing Spider-Man #538, "The War at Home" limps to its flaccid so-called conclusion. Stretched to 7 parts - and still ends on a f*****g cliffhanger of Aunt May getting shot! The fact that this thing was padded was so painfully obvious - did we really need two whole pages of the sniper going to sleep - including a full page panel of just him sleeping? Or all of the reaction shots during the last two issues?

We can't talk about Civil War without talking about the botched scheduling and delays. Unfortunately, it seems to be a trend among us fanboys to judge a title not entirely by the quality, but by the politics and/or business practices involved. Of course, unlike your typical late book, Marvel really screwed the pooch tying its entire line to this thing - so that when it went late, the whole publishing line was affected. Although Marvel will certainly crow about how successful Civil War was and how much money it made - how much money was lost by Marvel, and continues to be lost, as a result of several books not coming out on time? That is simply not very good business.

But it's all Steve McNiven's fault?

Civil War: Frontline
I feel so wiped out after analyzing Civil War that I don't have much left in the tank this week. But, I still have some space to fill (gotta give you your money's worth - wait a minute - I ain't making any money off this! Maybe I'm the one with poor business sense.), so let's go ahead and knock out Frontline.

FrontLine started out very promising, as a sub series of the original, promising to fill in all of those annoying little gaps and behind the scenes stories of the Superhero Civil War. Written by Paul Jenkins, who had a good run on Peter Parker a few years back, this series was packed with something you don't often see in comic books anymore - dialogue! And lots of it, rather than panel after panel of reaction shots. Unfortunately, the series really failed to satisfactorily address many questions, made things even more confusing, and collapsed under its own weight and self-importance. I've always thought Jenkins was a good writer, but a weak plotter, sharp on dialogue, but not so good at creating satisfying conclusions to his strong set-ups. Not only that, but Frontline was originally a 10 part series that got stretched to 11 parts because of - what else - the delays in the main series.

There were essentially three parallel storylines in Frontline:

• Reporters Ben Urich and Drunken Sally Floyd (the old standard cliché - let's provide a character with a human failing - which one? How about we make him/her a drunk? Yeah, that's never been done before. Unfortunately, what takes the edge off that cynical statement is the sad fact that so many people are alcoholics) trying to determine what the superhero Civil War was really about, and resolving nothing to our satisfaction. We are repeatedly told that there is something more behind the Civil War, someone manipulating things behind the scenes - but who? What? As Sally Floyd says in issue #4"Who stands to gain from something like this? Follow that trail and you're more than likely to find out the real reasons behind the registration act." O.K., if you saw the real reasons, please let me know because I never figured it out. Who was eavesdropping on her and Urich's conversation in that issue and leaving notes behind? Who was following Floyd in issue #5 who doesn't show up in a mirror? Issue #10 has Floyd and Urich persistently tell each other (and us) how what they've found out is going to blow the top off everything - and Urich cryptically says "I think I know the real reasons behind the Civil War." What? The real reasons weren't because the government was trying to curb irresponsible superhero behavior and limit collateral damage, as a Congressman tells Floyd in issue #7, and that there was really no conspiracy? Then what were they? When Floyd and Urich confront Tony Stark in issue #11 with their massive expose that they will never print because the country can't handle the truth (I can hear Jack now - yes I want him on that wall, I need him on that wall), their findings are about Stark's actions to keep the Superhero Civil War from tearing the country apart (we'll discuss that later) rather than any great revelations about the origins of the war itself.

• Speedball acting stupid, becoming a prison bitch, getting off on pain, and then getting fitted for his new kinky Iron Maiden costume as he becomes "Penance"! Oooooohhh. Way, way too much damn time was spent on Speedball and who gives a rat's ass about Speedball? Not to mention he was acting like one of the stupidest mother******s in comics. Speedball refuses to take any of the generous deals that are offered to him after the Stamford massacre because as he repeatedly says “I didn’t do anything wrong!” Yeah, you did, you dumb-ass, and you’re the only one who doesn’t get it. It's hard to be sympathetic to someone who is completely clueless. Yes, he was being used as a scapegoat, but that still didn't alter the fact that he also WAS guilty of criminally negligent homicide. If I decide to chase after someone profiled on "America's Most Wanted," and he takes hostages, and then kills them when I don't back off - and all the while I am not an officially authorized agent of the police - then yes, I am guilty of a crime. And I would do anything to avoid shacking up with a bunch of smelly hairy guys who wanted to make me their butt buddy, particularly since even prisoners don't like guys who commit crimes against children. And there was no resolution on just who the hell was his cellmate "Hickey," the guy whose eyes glowed and who never talked.

• Norman Osborn vs. the Fish People. Now, this one I had a real hard time figuring out because it left so many unanswered questions. Naturally, I was happy to see my old buddy play an important role in this whole affair, but he spends most of the time foaming at the mouth, acting like a whiny child "I didn't do it!" and dangling from Tony Stark's puppet strings. This is Urich and Floyd's "big story," that Stark used Norman Osborn, both in and out of his Green Goblin guise, to blow up an Atlantean sleeper cell, and then to take a shot at a visiting Atlantean dignitary, to create tensions between the US and Atlantis and use the threat of an invasion from Atlantis to unite a increasingly divided country. Pretty damn ballsy plot, in which Stark essentially orders the deaths of several Atlanteans. Would've been a bitch if it didn't work perfectly. Or is that what really happened? Just what was the purpose of the sleeper cell? Were they really up to no good, or were they just covertly studying human culture, as the Atlantis delegation claimed? Oh I should've picked up the Sub-Mariner limited series or something else in order to get the true story? Screw that.

• And finally, there were the regular vignettes at the end, in which a real life historical event is paired with similar goings on in the Marvel Universe. I know they were well intentioned, but still come across as somewhat pretentious and in dubious taste. Images that show people who died in real wars, people who were subjected to imprisonment in realinternment camps, and then contrasting them with what was going on in Civil War, featuring superheroes who routinely appear on underwear and in cartoons? This was matched by an equally dubious "homage" to the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, only with the part of Oswald played by Speedball. However, the vignette in issue #9 is absent of superheroes and appears to be the real story of the service of members of Jenkins' family in the armed forces of Great Britain (Jenkins is British). In it, he reveals a respect and admiration for our servicemen that is sadly lacking in the entertainment industry and it is a touching memorial to these great men.

• Reporter Floyd coming onto Spider-Man when he gives her a story, which forces Spidey to uncomfortably tell her that he's married.

• Peter's jokes at his unmasking press conference as to why he chose the name Spider-Man "Because I didn't think that anyone would be afraid of Captain Jellyfish" and "Mr. Fantastic was taken."

• A photographer describes a superhero battle to Ms. Floyd in issue #3 "The guy on the left is Thunderclap. They gave me antibiotics for that once."

• Jenkins himself actually appears on the cover of issue #5.

• In issue #5, in stating the he knows it was Osborn who attacked him, Urich says "I know those eyes better than my own reflection. There's only person in the world wrapped around that much anger."

Jenkins does a much better job of trying to be even handed in the debate than JMS, for example, although it's clear on what side the reporters fall. The conversation between Sally Floyd and Congressman Eugene Sykes in issue #7, for example, where Sykes convinces her of his sincerity in pushing through the Registration Act as a protection measure, not a totalitarian one, which he supports by his describing his experiences in Vietnam, is a rational discussion. Still, there are some inconsistencies and editorial sloppiness. For one, issue #6 takes us into the Negative Zone Gulag, which looks completely opposite of what we saw in Amazing Spider-Man #535. In the latter, the Gulag was a relatively clean place where prisoners were supposedly treated "humanely" with rooms equipped to negate their special powers. However, in Frontline, what we see is something out of a bad prison movie, with inmates denied medical attention, or allowed to kill themselves because they can change parts of their bodies into shotguns and blow their heads off. So, which is it? Editors? And then there was his labeling of the Daily Bugle as "right-wing toilet rag," which caught me a bit by surprise. Since when in the Marvel Universe did the Bugle go from a great metropolitan newspaper to something of the caliber of The Weekly World News? And right wing? While there's no doubt that old JJJ has always leaned right and had fairly uncompromising positions on law and order - he was also squarely on the side of civil rights in the 1960's. Putting the stories in their original context, he also had an African-American City Editor at a time when black people in the South were still fighting for the right to sit anywhere they chose on a bus and were still fair game for nuts in white sheets. In fact, the presence of Joe Robertson as Jonah's conscience kept the Bugle from becoming a "toilet rag" with the exception of JJJ's almost psychotic hang up about Spider-Man. Yes, I know that technically, as time moves forward, the Marvel Universe really didn't begin until the 1990's - but although Marvel wants us to forget that there were stories told in the decades prior to that - WE remember. And I suppose that the phrasing could simply have been Urich's cynical griping - lord knows he's put up with a lot of crap from Jonah over the years.

Naturally, I can't sign off on this part without discussing a major turning point in the life of Norman Osborn, as he goes from simply being the Green Goblin, to a character more interwoven into the events of the Marvel Universe. In some respects, I consider it to be a positive development, because those of you who have read my essays know that I have long thought that he needed to develop an agenda and existence beyond that of simply making Peter Parker's life miserable. He was too good of a character to just pop up every three or four years in a silly green and purple costume, throw some pumpkin bombs, hatch some devious scheme, and then get defeated and slink away. And this story is really still being told in the pages of The Thunderbolts, which is beyond this article, so maybe there are some plot points yet to be elaborated upon, but we'll work with what we have.

We first see Norman in SHIELD custody in issue #2 watching the Spider-Man unmasking press conference, and freaking out when Peter talks in no uncertain terms about what a scumbag Osborn is and that he murdered Gwen Stacy as the Green Goblin. In Osborn's mind, talking so freely about him "broke the rules," the two supposedly were following. Now, I was a little surprised to see that Norman had been apprehended off-panel (like in a Howard Mackie story) after he slipped away into the night at the end of Marvel Knights Spider-Man #12. I had hoped he was going to get a well-deserved rest from appearances for awhile since he had been used quite a bit in previous years. Naturally, my first reaction is that Norman would have been a lot more careful after one stint in prison than to let himself get caught again. But, it's also realistic to assume that when he was incarcerated the first time that he was implanted with something to track his movements. Plus, how many people out there do you know with red washboard hair?

We next see him in issues #4 & 5, in full Green Goblin gear, terrorizing Ben Urich, threatening revenge for that expose of many years ago. These scenes are fun, because Norman is clearly nuts as he taunts Urich. The art, while sometimes it makes him look like he's been ingesting too many twinkies during his incarceration, still creates the feeling that this is one totally batshit crazy dude. However, before he makes good on any of his threats, Osborn collapses and starts foaming at the mouth, as if under someone's remote control (or just rabid). And when Urich gets away and tells everyone his story, no one believes him, because SHIELD insists that Osborn never left his cell. So just what was Norman doing out there? Was this just a trial run to test whether or not he was truly under control? That was never explained.

In issue #6, Urich confronts Stark, asking him "was it overwhelming arrogance or stupidity that led you to make a deal with the devil known as the Green Goblin?" Stark, more than forthcoming on the death of Bill Foster, suddenly goes silent. It seems a little presumptuous that Urich would already sense something was up - but maybe this was just his good reporter's instinct. He really didn't know that Stark had made a deal with Osborn, but the fact that he clammed up right away instead of asking where did he come up with that crazy notion told Ben that he was indeed onto something. But then there's more confusion as in issue #7 Joe Robertson tells Urich that his "Osborn story just went through the ceiling," while sitting next to a headline that says "Costumed Killer Amnesty," but this is never mentioned again. Was Norman formally pardoned for his crimes? Was the headline even remotely connected to Osborn - or was it a reference to something else? Later we see Norman back at Oscorp in New Jersey, talking to a mysterious figure who gives him a drink that suppresses the nanites in his bloodstream that are used to track him and make him more "subject to persuasion." That the mysterious figure is Stark is not much of a surprise, since Norman admits to the conundrum of "being grateful to someone I hate so much" and it was established in an issue of Iron Man years ago that the two knew and despised each other. Later, as the Goblin, he attacks a gathering of Atlanteans and Wonder Man, who has them under surveillance, with a cryptic reference to "muddying the waters."

In issue #8, Osborn out of costume, shoots at an Atlantean delegation, but as we find out in issue #11, the gun was altered so that he would miss his target. In #9, he's strapped to a chair (complete with Hannibal Lecter mask) and interrogated by the police, but then dragged out by a mysterious individual who is later identified as Stark, begging for help and promising that he will reveal everything. As you can imagine, I really didn't care for this. Norman with a muzzle because he bit an arresting officer? Somehow I can't see Norman resorting to biting people. And I can't see him showing fear of anyone whether or not he might actually feel such an emotion. But this is probably easily explained. He's already nuts, and with a combination of the nanites in his blood, drugs to counteract the nanites, and then forced to go into frothing fits when he starts to slip his leash, he's probably barely in control of his emotions. And he's back to his nasty, manipulative, and modestly in control self in Thunderbolts (although he's starting to slip because of Moonstone messing with his meds). So, we can probably accept the events of Frontline as not typical of Norman's behavior.

One thing that was nailed was Norman's utter contempt for anyone who crosses his path, as these insults of his interrogators indicates:

• "Check the facts you unimaginative flat footed harridan."

• "Call me Norman again and I'll kill you where you stand."

• "I will be (in a position to call the shots), you anorexic tart! I'll tear your family apart from Granny to the goldfish!"

• "Get it through your thick pavlovian doggy skulls, you morons."

However, that still doesn't explain how Osborn goes from Tony's Tool to the new director of the Thunderbolts, which are actually outside of Stark's jurisdiction as the new head of SHIELD. The Thunderbolts are under the auspices of the Committee on Superhuman Activities, a separate organization. When the new Thunderbolts era begins with issue #110 of that magazine, Norman is firmly in control and seems to have a considerable amount of autonomy. And considering that under Warren Ellis, the T-Bolts' mag seems to have slipped to a bi-monthly schedule, any answers that will fill in the gaps seem to be a long time in coming. Still, discussion of the Thunderbolts is beyond what I want to accomplish here - maybe someone in a separate Green Goblin article.

And that's all I want to say about Civil War.

Whew.