shock doctrine" and after that prime minister's questions with british prime minister gordon brown on britain's military strategy to fight terrorism in afghanistan. ...

the term globalization, i have never found all of that helpful. >> as you know, this is written by people we do not know and comes together. have you ever looked at it? >> no, i have this allergy. >> ok, let me be brief. naomi grew up with left wing activism. her parents moved to canada from the usa as war resisters to the vietnam war yet her mother, a documentary filmmaker, bonnie sherr klein is best known for our anti-pornography film "not a

love story." her father, michael klein, works at another group. >> yes, i come from a family of troublemakers. my father was born in new york, new jersey, and they both went to sandford at crackhead school and met there. my grandparents, my father's parents, they were also activists, and my grandfather was actually a union organizer at walt disney. he was an animator. he used to draw a donald duck for walt disney. he was in charge of donald duck continuity.

in the 1940's, he was one of several union organizers and they staged the first animator'' strike and he got fired and blacklisted. because of the history of blacklisting in the family, when my father was drafted to go to vietnam, he did not want to go. he was a pacifist. he continues to be a pacifist, but he also did not want to go through the process of proving his political credentials because of the history of un- american activities and the political resonance in his own family of having been the son of a blacklisted artist. he preferred to leave and came to canada. that is why i am a canadian. i was born a few years later. >> your mother and father were married here? >> in new jersey. yes. and then they moved together. i have an older brother. >> to montreal. >> are they still there? >> no, they are in vancouver for the weather.

but they moved to montreal. many american young people in this time moved to canada. it was kind of a brain drain. war resisters from the vietnam era. my father taught medicine at mcgill. my mother worked at the national film board of canada. we moved back to the united states when i was a baby and lived there till i was five in rochester, new york. this was after it had become safe for war resisters. my father worked in a health clinic in the state, and my mother worked at a cable access channel. they both decided they preferred it in canada. my father preferred the single payer health care system. my father preferred that.

my mother was working for the national film board, which is a public institution that allowed her to make the political films that she wanted to make. they left the u.s. because of stayed in canada because of the social programs. >> do you remember when you first learned of this story and it sunk in? >> in canada, you did not have to be rich to get sick. i feel i always knew the story about health care. this was explained to me as a kid. i did understand that it was unfair that people were denied access to medicine because they did not have money to pay. as a doctor, my father preferred to work in a system whereby money did not have anything to do with the care that you received. i feel like i have always known that. it has always been a part of my

canadian identity. my canadian identity has always been tied to these things. i have an identity as a canadian and as an american. i have dual citizenship. it was our nuclear family that moved to canada. my grandparents were in the united states. on both sides. all of my cousins were still in the united states. we were always going back and forth over the border. i was always aware of the things that made canada different. it had to do with our foreign policy. the fact that canada was not involved in vietnam, did not send troops to vietnam. pierre trudeau, our prime minister declared that canada would be a haven for people who resisted the war. we have different values when it came to health care. and how to treat people who were sick. it was a formative for me, the choices my parents made. >> how did you get dual citizenship? do they have dual citizenship? >> both of my parents are

american. they did not lose their citizenship. when they moved to canada. carter pardoned in the war resisters. -- pardon the war resisters -- pardon them. -- pardons -- pardoned them. if your parents are both american, you are american no matter where you were born. but i was born in canada. automatically have canadian citizenship. blacklisted. who blacklisted him? >> walt disney himself testified against the strike organizers. the house committee on un- american activities. the blacklist was unofficial, but he could not get work as an artist. he painted signs and he worked in the shipyards, but he was not able to work in the profession that he loved. he possessed an enormous talent in that, and he was an animator.

it was always interesting to me that despite the fact his career was ruined by walt disney, he still loved films and he used to delight us as kids drawing perfect caricatures of all the disney characters. we watched the films he made with great pride. we made a distinction between the fact that the films could be wonderful, without the corporate politics. it informed how i wrote about pop culture and how i wrote "no logo." a lot of people that write about pop culture tend to throw it all out. anyone who wants to go to the mall has terrible values. it's junk. there was a disdain for pop

culture. and for me, i felt like it was possible to critique the corporate power but maintain an appreciation of why we are drawn to this culture. >> let me keep reading. some of it would be redundant. her paternal grandparents were communists he began to turn against the soviet union. in 1942, grandfather phil klein, an animator at disney, was fired animators strike and went to work at a shipyard instead. klein's father grew up around ideas of social justice and racial equality but found it difficult and frightening to be the child of the communists a so-called red diaper baby. is all that true? >> it is pretty much true. i do not know the exact years. i always double check with wikipedia.

>> did you talk to him about this? >> that is what i was saying earlier. what he came to canada. -- what he came to canada. -- why he came. i was saying that this feeling order to be a conscientious objector, you have to prove yourhaving been the child of the blacklisted man, it was just too close for him to think about proving his familial credentials as a leftist and a pacifist and the idea of turning on his family and giving the state information that they would use against people he loved. so he just prefer to leave. >> i hear the canadian accent. "against." are you aware of that? >> people tell me i have a very

neutral accent. >> he comes from a similar background. your husband. he is a tv journalist and documentary filmmaker. his parents aremichelle landsberg. and klewis. -- lewis. that this is your wikipedia site. >> this obsession with my family history is bizarre. it is not an area that i havei write about politics and culture.

i am not an autobiographical it is -- i am not autobiographical. not and i a biographical writer -- not an autobiographical writer. this is seen as the most relevant thing about me. i think it would be if i were memoirist. i might write one of those one day but it is not what i have done with my life. >> this is what i want to ask about. >> back was the pass of this rebellion in my family. we used to joke that i was like the oldest daughter on family ties. mallory.

these two aging hippies who produced this mall rat daughter. of course, they had a wall street watching son. we were reenacting that in our home. >> what about a feminist mother? did that bother you? >> she was a filmmaker and she made films about the women's movement. she was part of the first women's film studio. she was part of the national film board of canada, called studio d. actually, i was very much influenced by my mother and her ideas about media and culture. studio d was this film center that saw itself as part of the women's movement. it was sort of the film arm of the women's movement. the women's movement was in high gear. this was the early '70s. the film world was a male- dominated. extremely, so they had an

argument that they needed to mentor women filmmakers. the films that they made were films that were consciousness raising raising films. they were films that were watched in living rooms, and people would watch them, and it would change their lives. this was the second wave of feminism. it happened with books and then it happened with films. but, yes. i learned a lot growing up around that. seeing how books and films could be parts of movements. and should be part of movements. any powerful movement has culture deeply imbedded in it. i think that was a counterbalance for me. i got more traditional journalism training. my mother told me that when i got my first job at a fairly

conservative paper in canada, where i in turn and got my first job, she told me that when people say that i lack objectivity, it means that i object to your activity. she always thought that you could be fair, but the most honest thing you could do is admit that you had a point of view. you can tell both sides of the story. a passion for the subject deals your work. -- fuels your work. in grade six, i had a mother that was out there on controversial subjects like pornography. it was not ideal from the perspective of the preteen -- but there were wonderful things about it, as well. >> why did she feel so strongly about pornography? >> you would have to ask her. i was so young when she made the film. she made lots of films. it was not an obsession.

like a lot of filmmakers, she would become obsessed with a subject for a couple of years and then move on. she had a consistent commitment to human rights. and her work. but pornography was just one interest of hers. it was a sensational topic. it was the height of the anti- porn movement. she got attacked for this film. it is not a conversation i have had with her. >> this gets into your mother having a stroke and becoming severely disabled would you were 17. -- when you were 17. when you were preparing to go into the university of toronto. you took care of your mother, bonnie, 3 period in the hospital and ex home, making the educational sacrifices to do so. that your office doctor from being such a brat.

-- that year stopped her daughter from being such a brat. how was your mother today? -- you took care of your mother, bonnie, through a period in the hospital. >> she is good. she made a pretty remarkable recovery. she had two devastated strokes. >> at what age? >> she was 46. she was young to be having the strokes. the second stroke, she lost all movement and she was on a respirator. it turned out that she had a brain tumor in her brain stem that she had had her whole life. it was made up of blood vessels. when she reached 46, they burst. you can live your whole life and not know that you have this timethey were able to operate on that had an excellent hospital -- operate on it at an excellent hospital. at the university of western ontario. she was airlifted from montreal.

they did this life-saving surgery, and she has made a remarkable recovery. she walks with to cannes. exxon -- she walks with two canes. she has a tricycle that she bikes on. i just took a year of school to take care of my mom. then i went to the university of toronto. >> and your degree is and what? >> i study philosophy. -- your degree is in what? >> i studied philosophy. i left after i got this job. i had a couple of credits left. there was an election campaign and they asked me to stay on and i never actually made it back to school. >> so, your career -- this book, "no logo" has sold a million copies? that's what it says in wikipedia. >> at least.

>> why? >> it came out 10 years ago. i think a lot of it was the moment when it came out. the book tracks the increasing power of corporations. it was a time when corporations were changing. it embraced this idea of branding over the production of goods. after i left the globe, i started writing a column for another newspaper. i was the token use columnist. -- use columnist -- youth columnist. something silly, like a 23, and so, that was my beat. -- liked age 23. -- liked --lik like age 23.

i looked at the kind of jobs people were getting, the kind of culture we were consuming, the issues we care about. it was a great platform to explore different subjects. there were these teams that were emerging in my columns. what was the increasing fact that my generation of workers were not getting offered jobs, we were getting offered contracts. this was a change from the previous generation. it is something that was so obvious now, but10 years ago, it was a phenomenon. there was an amazing graciousness. -- will graciousness -- there was an amazing voraciousness. in the world of marketing. i was covering of that. at the high school level, there was a company called channel one, which was doing television in classrooms with advertisements in them, which was creating a scandal. scandals on public university campuses. more and more corporate sponsored research on university

campuses because funding was collapsing. in canada, there are no private universities. everything is public. but it was becoming public in name only. because corporations were making these inroads. >> there are no private universities in canada? >> no, we have a public education. there is some private post secondary educational institutions, colleges, butnot at the university level. >> i did not mean to interrupt. >> that is ok. i decided to write "no logo" when i started to see this management phenomenon. telling corporations that they should sell a lot their factories and invest in their images and their brands, and it seemed to make sense of these two trends that i had been falling at once. the fact that corporations --

falling at once. -- following at once. creating what was being called at the time hollow corporations. -- "apollo corp's." -- "hollow corporations." companies like nike that did not own a single factory but were this athletic giant. they were incredibly aggressive in their marketing. i discovered that this increasingly aggressive market was one side of a corn. -- a coin. young people are less loyal to corporations. that is different from the loyalty that our parents' generation had to the companies that were offering them employment for life.

ours was a much more fickle loyalty. it could really turn on a dime. in the last half of book, i focus on young people going after companies like nike for using sweatshops. in the developing world, things like that, or a company like shell, for their environmental record in nigeria, and talking about how brandan was being used and parading back -- boomeranged back on these corporations. i would tell people that i was writing about anti corporate activism. this was a boom era. everything seemed to be going well with the free market economy. but the book was that the printer in november, and the was being held in seattle and

seattle was flooded with tens of thousands of activists. it was 10 years ago. many of them were young. they were talking about many of these issues. labor records of companies like nike. it really took the mainstream media by surprise. the book's success was because it came along when this movement can along. when it came to said in consciousness, and the book got to become part of that. >> you are probably about 25 years old? yes, 26. around there. >> yes. >> did you feel you are awfully young? were you always activist? >> no, certainly not in high school. in university, i got involved in politics a little bit. but mostly, i was involved in campus journalism.

i was the editor of my university newspaper at the university of toronto, which is a full-time job. the newspaper came out three times a week. it was a very, very large campus. i cared a lot about issues, but it was not like i was out with a picket sign. coming from what my mother showed me, writing was part of any movement. journalism. on university campuses, a lot of people feel that way. a lot of campus journalism is very opinionated. very activist. >> can you vote in both canada and the united states? >> i can if i want to. yes. >> have you voted in the united states? >> no. because i do not live in the united states. i only travel on my canadian passport. i do not actually have an american passport. if i moved to the u.s. and wanted to, i would vote in the

elections. i would activate all of that. >> i have the new forward to your book, "no logo." coming out again in paperback? >> the 10th anniversary edition is coming out with a new foreword. >> all right, i am going to read some of what you wrote. this is what i track in the -- barack obama. >> yes, and this is what i tracked in the -- track in the book. the ambition of the super brands of the 1990's in companies like starbucks and nike and apple. the equated their ideas with this transcendent injury. they ended up making themselves -- this transcendent in the

jury -- imagery. the ended up making themselves -- they ended up making themselves very vulnerable to their consumers demanding more of them. when a company like apple uses gondi in an ad -- ghandi in an ad, or anti racism in their market, it is usually because somebody at their advertising firm did research and found that this would be most resonant with their target. they were not prepared for being held accountable for these ideas when consumers ask why 16- year-old girls are making your speakers for a paltry wages if you believe in treating women fare. -- fair. it is interesting. that kind of activism forced a lot of reforms on companies, but i argue in the introduction that the most significant development

in the world of branding is the application of this theory of the hollow corporation and all of these ideas of messaging been totally absorbed into the world of politics. they use absolutely every tool. there were interesting similarities in nike's campaigns. we are in a time were a lot of people that believed in him are feeling this gap between the emotions. that his campaign made, and i said emotions because it was not exactly promises in some cases. this is what made this campaign more like lifestyle marketing. he very studiously stayed away from really clear promises of topics -- clear on a lot of topics. he more did what all grit marketers do, which is -- all

great marketers do, which is create associations with the evolution without actually taking that extra step and saying i am going to do this and this is exactly how i am going to change the world and invite people to project what they wanted. people have a sense that he promised more than he actually did, and that is where there is a sense of betrayal now. his opponents are extremely mobilized an extremely angry. his supporters are pretty tentative. i think he has a branding problem. that he had in the 1990's. -- that night he had in the 1990's. -- that nike had in the 1990's.

he has raised hopes and has not lived up to them. i really think he has failed to do that so far. >> did you ever think that you heard something you wanted to hear from him? did you believe it? >> absolutely. i was conscious of it, but because i had studied marketing so closely, i was aware that i was witnessing a very effective marketing. i was aware that i was projecting. i did a fair bit of research about what his actual policies were and i knew that there was a gap between these euphoric hopes he was raising and what he was promising. actually. it is not as simple as broken promises. what is also demobilizing his base, he made the them feel like they were part of an anti-war movement. he made them think that obama represented peace. they were sick of bush's wars. there was a very idealistic

spirit of the campaign. but if you look at his policies, he did say he would ask the late in afghanistan and he did say he was one to draw down in iraq but not pull out completely. his base is in an awkward position. he cannot say he broke the promises, because, actually, he did not break its promises. he did not say he would and the wars in iraq or afghanistan. -- he did not say he would end the wars. people do not know how to respond to this particular kind of a campaign which is so much like the world of marketing. >> if we followed you around on a day-to-day basis, what would you be doing? >> mostly writing. it would not be a terrifically interesting. >> i guess i should ask, you are always in front of audiences and you travel a lot and you and your husband are in separate worlds. >> when my last book came out, "the shock doctrine," things went pretty crazy for me. i had only written two books and seven years passed between

the two books. so i see it in cycles. i go into hibernation when i am writing. when i wrote "the shock doctrine," i had no distractions. i left my home in toronto and went to live in a very remote part of british columbia, in the wilderness, no distractions. >> did you take your husband with you? >> my husband came with me but had to go back because he was hosting tv shows. i did a lot of research for "the shock doctrine." i went to iraq. i was inch sri lanka after the tsunami. when it came down to actually writing, i totally holed up. i am kind of entering one of those phases now.

i am not doing as much public speaking. i am saying no to a lot. this is a rare week for me. i am coming out of hibernation and doing a little bit of public stuff. i am in research mode. >> where did you meet your husband? >> i knew his family. you mentioned his mother. his mother is a wonderful journalist and somebody i respect a great deal. it is not that big a country, so i knew her. >> speaking of different countries, when you are in canada, do you feel differently than when you are in the united states? i mean, when you interact with people, is there a different attitude among canadians that there is with americans about country and patriotism? wars and all of that? >> i think it depends on where i am in the united states. to be honest with you, i do not

feel a huge difference between the blue parts of the united states and canada. i think the countries are coming more together. but, no. i feel pretty comfortable going back and forth. certainly from new york to toronto. >> who is the most angry with your writing? >> milton friedman fans were pretty angry with "the shock doctrine." the book is pretty tough on milton friedman. i think that there are probably still people who are most annoyed with my books. >> wanted to pick on milton friedman? -- why did you pick on milton friedman? >> "the shock doctrine" tells an alternative history of the globalized world. the kind of market economy that we have that has been globalized around the world. it is a pretty fundamentalist

version of market economics. pretty much everything should be privatized. media for deregulation. -- mania for deregulation. we have seen the results on wall street. "the shock doctrine" tells the story of how we got here and milton friedman played a big role in that story. mainly because he was the movement's prime popularizer. not because his ideas were so or regional, -- so original, but he took that tradition to the masses. he was the one who did the 10 part series on pbs. he was the one with a column in "newsweek." he had that incredible talent for writing and taking economics to a public audience. he was a political adviser to many governments. he played a very, very important role. the focus of the book is much less on him personally that on -- van on -- than on the

university of chicago and the particular world at the university of chicago played internationally. the university of chicago had an aggressive program. attracting international students, particularly students from latin america. it had nothing to do with milton friedman. this was a decision that came out of the state department. there was a concern that latin america was moving to the left. it certainly was. it move further and further to the left in the seventh -- the 1970's and 1960's. this idea was cooked up between the economics department and the head of the usaid. they would bring chilean students and it was outside the mainstream of american economic discourse. because it was so conservative, and in the 1950's, it was seen as outside the mainstream. the united states was still in

the grips of keynesian islam. -- keynesian economics. all of the ivy league's had an economics department. they had this program to bring hundreds of latin american students to study under friedman and his colleagues. that had a tremendous impact on the politics of latin america because in the 1970's, there were teams of economies that were ready to work with those military governments that did not have any expertise. -- teams of economists. they formed a partnership with the military and the college students. trained at the university of chicago. >> how did you research that connection? >> there was a huge amount of research there. this research actually came out of the fact that i had lived in argentina for almost two years. i went there in the end of 2001 and my husband and i made a film called "the take." it was about the economic

crisis that hit argentina in 2001. >> you are standing in front of $90 million of equipment. they have taken over for your own benefit. we have a word for that. it is called stealing. >> [speaking spanish]

>> and this history is very strong in argentina. i learned about it from what happened in argentina during the military coup. from there, i learned about chile. >> can you do a simple definition of the difference -- fortified each one of this. -- identify each one of these? a follower of milton friedman believes this, and a follower of john maynard keynes believed this?

>> keynesian economics should not be subject to the market. maybe health care. the thing about keynesian economics is that it is not a rule book. this is what makes a different -- makes it different. milton friedman says this and that should be privatized. it is a little bit like apples and oranges to compare them. you do not have keynesian disciples. there are some rules. if you're in an economic recession, you should spend your way out of it. countercyclical investments. that is the clearest keynesian rule. the friedman philosophy is that

in the midst of an economic crisis, there was contraction in the midst of an economic downturn. austerity measures, and this was done in country after country. it has had devastating human results. >> if you just watch this network for the past couple of years, people are pointing at each other and saying you did it, you did it. but when it comes to this whole business of regulation, people are saying we have always had the laws but they were not applied. >> i do not think that is true. in the 1990's, there was a series of decisions that were made that deregulated the financial sector, that allow banks to take garden levels of debt that were illegal before him. -- to take on levels of debt that were eagle before hand. -- were illegal beforehand.

you have a situation like bear stearns where they had a ratio of 33-1 of debt to assets. there was an extensive debate that we now know was over whether or not to be regulate derivatives. there were people who wanted to regulate. there was a push back from alan greenspan, who said that they did not want to regulate derivatives. like larry summers. the idea that there were rules but there were not applied, this was a concerted lobby not to have regulations over this part of the economy. and argument was made that it could be self regulating. that was the fundamental flaw that alan greenspan has admitted to. there was the discussion to do away with the glass-steagall act. there was the law that deregulated -- that was the deregulation decision. if we look at the really key factors that led to this particular economic crisis, and

look at a sector that was outside the reach of regulators, that was not the case of rules being on the books and not being enforced. that was the case of a vision of deregulation that was enforced. >> in your new introduction to "no logo" you say -- you were talking about president obama, slamming the greed of executives, even as he hands the reins of the economy to consummate wall street insiders. >> what i am describing here is the key pieces of deregulation that created the context for this crisis. they were all clinton era decisions. they were all when larry summers or bob dornan was in charge of the u.s. treasury. -- or bob rubin.

the fact that larry summers is the most powerful economist in washington is troubling. barack obama did that. i always remember that sarah palin and john mccain barely got a bump out of it. sarah palin and john mccain had been ahead. we were looking pretty seriously at a future of a mccain/palin ticket winning. and then, lehman brothers collapse. there is a two-week period, august 30 when lehman brothers collapsed in september, and after the lehman brothers collapse, barack obama found his voice and he started talking about how this financial crisis was not the result of just one or two bad apples but a result of ideology of the regulation. -- of deregulation that had gripped the united states for

eight years, and that is where he was not telling the truth. it was not just the bush years. democrats and talking about what gives me a little bit of a different perspective is because i do not live in the u.s.. i am much less partisan. i am not driven by a desire for democrats to win elections. that is not what drives my riding. -- my riding. -- during that election campaign, we knew damn well that the key pieces of legislation that created the economic crisis had been created during the clinton years. -- that is not what drives my writing. it was dishonest. we knew that this was a better political message to claim that the ideology was bush policy. the problem with the intellectual dishonesty is that it comes back to bite you. if you are lying to yourself and everyone else, then what is to prevent larry summers from coming back and being given the

keys to the treasury once again? >> what weight -- what grade would you give on this issue? >> what grade? the problem with the u.s. economy is that it has been in this cycle of bubbles of baubles and busts -- this cycle of bubbles and busts. during the boom times, the media has been an active participant in building that height. this is where holding the media a cannibal is absolutely crucial. bubbles are all about hype. john stewart was criticized for going after jim cramer, why pick on him -- jim cramer.

this is the job of high, and someone like jim kramer was a hot air machine. in retrospect, there was some incredible investigative reporting. by the business press. >> name somebody? something? >> the new york times investigative team has been absolutely incredible. why am i forgetting her name? >> gretchen morgenstein. >> she has done a really good job. it is retroactive. we needed that reporting at the time. this is forensic reporting. i do think that there are some really good -- there is some really good work being done.

there is the pushback she got from moving on larry summers and alan greenspan. i think that huffington post is doing some really good stuff. one thing that is important is that there is an outing of lobbyists. one of the things that i think is going on now. lobbyist preferred to remain anonymous. -- prefer to remain anonymous. this has made banks -- has made lobbyists fair game. now that we know they are doing is using taxpayer dollars. these are major power players that enjoyed not facing scrutiny. the chamber of commerce is facing unwanted scrutiny.

these are major power players. this is one of the reasons why i am releasing "no logo." this is a bit of a "no logo" on this anniversary. it is a bit of a "no logo" beane movement. -- "no log" moment. it is back with a vengeance. it seemed like the timing was right. >> the other book "the shock doctrine." what you did this come out? >> 2007. >> i know you started off talking about a woman who has severe mental problems for a reason. tell that story as a metaphor for the book. >> the book is about different

kinds of shock. that's why is called the shock doctrine. -- that is why it is called the shock doctrine. it is about the political uses of shock. it came out of reporting that i did in iraq. i did a peak for "harper's." -- i did a piece for "harper's." the shock and all attack on iraq -- -- the shock and awe attack on iraq was exported by the bush team. -- exploited by the bush team. one man said that what paul bremer tried to do was more of an extreme method. i happened to be in iraq when

the first quarter scandals broke -- torture scandals broke. i try to understand what these different forms of shock -- i tried to understand what these different forms of shock meant. these non metaphorical shot -- these non-metaphorical shocks. being in the news. bodies and torture. so i started reading. i read the declassified documents. the cia manuals. this is about tried to talk to people who do not want to talk

to you. the manuals talk about the need -- about trying to talk to people who do not want to talk to you. the manuals talk about the need to put a prisoner into a state of shock. they become compliant and a regress. they go into a childlike state and they are more likely to cooperate with their interrogator. when i read that, i felt it was a description of what i have witnessed in iraq. the idea was that the war strategy was that iraq would be so shocked and so awed that they could easily be marshalled from point a to point b. and point b was taht iraq would be this person -- this perfect free-market economy. -- that iraq would be this

perfect free-market economy. the first summer, it was all about economic reform. id allowed -- it allowed foreign investors to come in. donald rums feld said it had the most enlightened tax policies in the world. there was no -- a donald rumsfeld said it had the most enlightened of tax policies in the world. this was all done shock therapy style. they were bent to the will of their interrogator. this was a country that was put into a state of shock and they attempted to bend it to the will of their occupiers. it did not work. it backfired. that is why i start the book with a woman who underwent extreme electric shock treatment as part of these horrible cia experiments in the 1950's.

>> do you and your family ever sat around and say that the americans are getting what they "deserve?" >> my parents consider themselves american as well as canadian. we never talk that way. they are. they do maintain their dual citizenship. they vote and all of that. they would not say that. ->> do that canadians you talk to feel this way? what is their attitude? >> if you look at how much people want to believe in american redemption, look at the excitement around the world about a bomb's election -- obama's election. there is a tremendous feeling of goodwill. obama mania hit canada pretty hard.

certainly, that is true of canada. and it remains. >> what is your take on the obama administration bringing these guantanamo bay prisoners to this town and trying them. -- trying them? new york city, having them tried here in a federal court, and then saying also it does not matter if they're guilty or not guilty. they are not going anywhere. in other words, if they are not found -- if they are found not guilty, they are not getting out. >> first of all, i do support the decision that they be tried in the united states. i think that americans need to regain their faith in their justice system. without exceptions. the ideas that you could have these pockets where you could send people for unlimited amounts of time is utterly wrong. it is legally and morally

untenable. it has to end. it is painful to bring the system back into lawfulness. to me, i think guantanamo should never have been opened in the first place. it is a very good sign that obama is doing this. but, yes, the last part of it, to say that results don't matter, that is undermining that message. it is kind of a typical obama compromise. actually, where he really undercuts himself by trying to split the difference. if there is anything that we can he is ending up in a position that is hard to defend. if there is anything that we can learn from the incredible response from obama, like people like glenn beck and sarah palin is that no matter how

modest his reforms are, the attacks are going to be as if they are the most radical reforms ever attempted. here we have been called a socialist, a fascist, being compared to hitler. to me, the message seems to be that they may as well stayed true to their beliefs. they may as well introduce several reforms rather than these half measures and endless compromises. then people will go to the wall and defend them. they keep making this mistake. they did it with health care.

their supporters did not know whether or not they should support it. -- do not know whether or not they should support it. the same thing will happen with the energy bill. every serious environmental group in this country looks at both versions of this bill and says that the commission cuts are nowhere near what the science demands -- the mission cuts are nowhere near what the science demands -- the emission cuts are nowhere near what the science demands. your supporters are left hanging because they do not have anything. >> another book for me? -- from you? what are you doing this time? >> it has to do with that. -- debts. that is all i can say right now. it is much more exciting than that. >> what you do you hope to publish it? >> i would say that it is two years away. >> are you more in demand in canada or in the united states? on a per capita basis, to hear your message? >> definitely in the united states more than anywhere else,

which has really changed. "npo logo" was a best-seller around the world. it was not a best seller in the u.s.. with "the shock doctrine" it sold better in the u.s.. and i think it is the political moment in this country. >> our guest is a dual citizen in the united states and in canada and she is the author of "no logo" and "the shock doctrine." we are out of time. we thank you for joining us. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> for a dvd copy of