Reducing political discourse to advertising slogans loses almost everything of value. Without lengthy books that develop complex ideas, we'd be so lost we'd never produce a worthwhile bumper sticker. The notion that facts don't matter because only emotional appeals to "values" sway anyone is an absurd and arrogant over-simplification. And, yet, something is gained, as well, in producing powerful and catchy imagery and slogans that at least disrupt the way people think about things. Rewriting "Columbus discovered America" as "Columbus invaded America" does alter the entire story. The image of tiny activist boats going up against enormous whaling ships does reverse the imagery of heroic sailors battling a leviathan. "Support the troops, bring them home," is a useful slogan.

Even as headlines and broadcast news are dominated by BP's fire-ravaged, sunken offshore rig and the ruptured well gushing a reported 210,000 gallons of oil per day into the Gulf of Mexico, there's another important story involving Big Oil and pollution -- one that shatters not only the environment but the essential First Amendment right of journalists to tell truth and shame the devil.

(Have you read, by the way, that after the surviving, dazed and frightened workers were evacuated from that burning platform, they were met by lawyers from the drilling giant Transocean with forms to sign stating they had not been injured and had no firsthand knowledge of what had happened?! So much for the corporate soul.)

But our story is about another petrochemical giant -- Chevron -- and a major threat to independent journalism. In New York last Thursday, Federal Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ordered documentary producer and director Joe Berlinger to turn over to Chevron more than 600 hours of raw footage used to create a film titled Crude: The Real Price of Oil.

BANGKOK, Thailand -- Black smoke billows from burning tires in the streets, creating small volcanoes fed by angry Red Shirt protesters armed with Molotov cocktails, slingshots and fireworks against trained snipers and inexperienced troops.

Survival amid Bangkok's worsening chaos and violence is making many people increasingly nervous, as more Reds and other civilians are shot and fires blaze.

A flaming barricade of tires spread to a nearby convenience store on Sunday (May 16) along Rama 4 Road, burning it to charred wreckage despite efforts by Reds and residents to douse the fire.

Many people fear hard-line protesters might intentionally set luxury hotels, malls, condominiums and offices ablaze if the army attacks the Reds' central rally site at Ratchaprasong intersection, equivalent to New York's Times Square.

Those concerns, coupled with the danger widespread civilian casualties, has kept security forces from storming the Reds' heavily barricaded Ratchaprasong stronghold, preferring to surround its outer streets and try to starve protesters into submission.

So, we elected a president who promised a withdrawal from Iraq that he, or the generals who tell him what to do, is now further delaying. And, of course, the timetable he's now delaying was already a far cry from what he had promised as a candidate.

What are we to think? That may be sad news, but what could we have done differently? Surely it would have been worse to elect a president who did not promise to withdraw, right?

But there's a broader framework for this withdrawal or lack thereof, namely the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement), the unconstitutional treaty that Bush and Maliki drew up without consulting the U.S. Senate. I was reminded of this on Tuesday when Obama and Karzai talked about a forthcoming document from the two of them and repeatedly expressed their eternal devotion to a long occupation.