>If I recall correctly, it was coined in the mid sixties by one of several very radical U.C. Berkeley professors (heard it with my own ears), to describe anyone who disagreed with his tendency to lead so-called students, in sometimes violent "Civil Dis-obedience" (politically correct word for a street riot).

Not heard this explanation before. I was taught in "civics" in high school, which predates the Berkeley stuff by 4 years, that these were the main branches of politics and politicians, from the left to the right: radicals, who go hell-bent for election in the direction of change, particularly the left-wing variety; liberals, who accept change; moderates, who also accept change only more slowly and gradually; conservatives, who want things to stay just like they are at the moment; and reactionaries, who want to turn the clock back "to the good/bad old days". This makes the phrase "radical right" a contradiction in terms and an oxymoron. Neocons are reactionaries, pure and simple. I for one don't want to go back to 14 or 16 hour days, 6 or 7 days a week.

As for the "civil disobedience" in Berkeley, that's a whole other can of worms, including the provocations by the Governor's office.