Oswald as unacknowledged Leftist hero?

Let me start by saying I think it is an interesting thesis, and makes a good argument about the movement of the left, well, to the left and about the way in which Oswald's agenda was manipulated. That said, the problem, like most partisan critiques, is that it is blown out of proportion. Meaning, though this does describe a certain, splinter mentality of the left, it is not the whole left--not even the academia left.

I feel I can speak to this, attending a school renowned for its "crazy" leftists, in the dept that should and does indeed harbor them. Now having had most of the tenured, "known" prof's, I can say they're there, that they are all not the same (i.e, have different attitudes on issues), and that there are those that aren't on the left that openly disagree w/, and even jest about, their colleagues. For example, my International Relations teacher this semester is a Jamaican born, American who is a working variously as diplomat, negotiator and consultant to African countries. On the left? Most likely. A realist of the necessity and benefit of an American hegemony at the moment? Yes. Derisive, when pressed, of certain radical ideas? Yep. Once she even mocked, as I do occasionally, my beloved Marxist/hippie prof, Berman (speaking of which, he never once mentioned the goto, hated Chomsky). But, usually it's more for his hippie (I use this word grudgingly, he's actually one of the most educated, knowledgeable people out there) optimism--he's no radical hater of America. In fact, he just put out a book about the good old days of pre-Disney New York, specifically Times Sqr. One of the main themes in his classes is how NY is/has been a great nexus of international metropolitanism, uniting all different folks, ideas, cultures, etc...see, hippie optimism.

Anyway, I'd like to go on about the rest of my encounters w/ the faculty (good and bad) to expose, I believe, more of the depth in "liberal" academia than the Melkin-aphites grant it. But, since most of your eyes are already glazing over and you're moaning something like "oh, Dan" I'll finish w/ my thesis: You/those people (include yourself if the shoe fits) need to start differentiating between radicals and liberals. Seriously, this is like poli-sci 101, people. They mean different things, I won't condescend to explain. To be sure, the line does blur--but there is a line! As well, the lines across the spectrum blur.

Case in point: name the one and only candidate for President that opposes the "validity of deploying U.S. military power" (not just Iraq) and for the most part is not only "ambivalent"but disdainful about the "worth of traditional American institutions?" Not a Democrat or a liberal. Give up? Ron Paul, the psycho I happen to agree w/ on one thing, as you all know: the lameness and ineffectiveness of the drug war. Update: excuse the language, but, HOLY SHIT! I just heard an audio of Paul himself saying that he thinks Lincoln was wrong to have fought the civil war--whaat! Makes you wonder if he's not a plant to make the right look bad. Good luck w/ the black vote, buddy. By logical extension, I take it he was against intervention in both world wars. Except maybe the Pacific, since, you know, we were attacked and all.

As with "god," "crackpot" is a word and the argument ends there. (Sorry, paraphrasing an obscure lyric, but hopefully you'll get the point.) So, please, only use it if necessary, for certain people and ideas, not entire generations or movements--that's too easy. (Example: universal healthcare does not equal communism, sorry.)