» When we take a step back and look critically and clearly at some of the brands woven into the very fabric of our culture and everyday lives, a new narrative emerges to counter the one-sided narrative pushed by corporate public relations types.

» A single shoe now has the power to tell a story about the new economics of the brand: its globallyproduced parts linking up into a narrative about the global economy’s business models and practices, its disparities, its winners and losers.

» An unintended result of multinational corporate marketing strategies is that over the past few years the high visibility of brands is being turned against them: we are now witnessing an explosion in brand-based investigative activities, in anti-corporate campaigns that seek to peel back the glowing dream world of the brand image to reveal the dark and unjust labor practices that make these brands possible.

» The irony in this new surge of activism is that high-profile brands like McDonalds and Starbucks and the Gap find themselves in the uncomfortable position of singing the praises of the free trade and the libratory power of globalization while at the same time positioning armed guards around their stores during rising protests.

» While it helps to know whether the companies you do business with have some sense of ethics and justice, holding multinational corporations responsible for how their products are made requires more than just responsible shopping.

» This means joining forces with those who are taking the global trade issue to the doorstep of World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the institutions whose job it is to write and enforce the rules of global trade.

» Challenging these institutions means challenging the fundamental logic that determines their policies: specifically, the basic assumption that the rules of trade should be written in the interests of largecorporations because what is good for global businesses will eventually benefit people around theworld, their environment, democracy and justice.

» The crucial distinction is this: protesting current trade practices has nothing to do with being anti-trade and everything to do with rejecting the anti-democratic logic that is working to increase profits regardless of the social, political, and environmental costs.

» This means rejecting also the notion that it is the role of citizens in a democracy to be spectators who simply watch and wait for the corporate vision of corporate elites to deliver democracy and justice.

» Organized protest against unfair trade and global brand empires therefore organizes itself around the core democratic necessity and goal of protecting and maintaining the public space unfiltered by the market – the "commons" demanded by democracy for true discussion and debate.

» One way this is happening is by transforming the corporate monologue on the streets into a dialogue through culture jamming, adbusting, billboard liberation and other forms of interruption and parody that send a competing message about how the product being advertised is actually produced.

» This kind of activism rejects the notion that people should wait to be granted rights that are already enshrined in law, especially the right to be heard: the issue then is not revolve around being for or against trade, but around being for or against democracy.

1. Klein says that a single Nike shoe can tell us a story about globalization and the new business practices of multinational corporate brands. How? What’s the story it tells, and how does this story relate to the overall argument of this video?

2. How has the high visibility of the big brands worked against the corporations that have built them?

3. Klein says you can’t change the direction corporations have taken through shopping.What does she mean by this? And what does she say can be done, instead, to hold multinational corporations accountable for their often abominable disregard for human rights, social justice and democracy?

4. Klein makes a distinction between free trade and fair trade.What do you see as the distinction, given the overall analysis presented in this video? How do you think the rhetoric of "free trade" has worked over time to deflect attention from the fundamental issues and principles of fairness that are at stake in the global economy?

5. What is the basic function of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)?

6. What does Klein suggest is the basic logic that informs the approach of these institutions to globalization?

7. Why have these institutions been the targets of so many mass protests by students and others over the past few years?

8. Protests against the WTO,World Bank and IMF have brought together a wide cross-section of the population: people concerned about the environment, about labor issues, about education, about health have found themselves joined by a common concern. What might such people and groups have in common when it comes to wanting to reform these institutions?

9. Klein says that challenging the power and practices of global corporations and the brand empires has nothing to do with protesting free trade. What does she mean by this? What are these massive popular movements challenging, if not trade, according to Klein?

10. What are some of the forms of activism around these issues Klein talks about? What are "culture jammers"? "Adbusters"? "Billboard liberators"? What’s the strategy behind this kind of activism? What role does irony and parody play in it, and why might this be an effective way to challenge the power of brands?

Naomi Klein says that we can each be part of the global movement to question the rhetoric of "free trade" and demand fair trade. She suggests that "adbusting" is one creative way to participate.

1. Visit the web site www.adbusters.org/creativeresistance/spoofads.

2. Now it’s time to make your own ad.

Option 1: The first step is to decide what type of ad you’d like to create. Some of the ads atwww.adbusters.org/creativeresistance/spoofads spoof actual ads, meaning they mimic the style and format of real ads to critique and comment on the brand. See for instance:www.adbusters.org/creativeresistance/spoofads/fashion/nike.

1. Read Naomi Klein’s essay "Fences of Enclosure, Windows of Possibility" at www.nologo.org/essay.php (or go to www.nologo.org and click on fences/windows). Make notes as you read, then complete one or both of the following:

And in light of all of this, do you think the mainstream media operate like a fence or a window? Explain. Second, try to find any alternative media outlets (web, print or television) that tell different stories about thecountry you’ve researched, or even similar stories with a different perspective. If you succeed, explain how

Third, think about Naomi Klein’s argument that we can each be part of the global movement towards fair trade.Then brainstorm and include in your paper some ideas about how you might use the media, mainstream or alternative, to be part of that movement.

It is now taken for granted that if world leaders want to get together to discuss a new trade deal, they will need to build a modern-day fortress to protect themselves from public rage, complete with armored tanks, tear gas, water cannons and attack dogs… The "war on terrorism" has become yetanother fence to hide behind, used by summit organizers to explain why public shows of dissent just won’t be possible this time around or, worse, to draw threatening parallels between legitimate protesters and terrorists bent on destruction.

Is the media acting as a fence or a window? Can you find any alternative media outlets (web, print or television) that present a non-mainstream media view of the protest(s)? If you can, was it difficult to find that mediaource? Why do you think it is not as readily available as the mainstream media? Explain. If you cannot findany, why do you think that is? Explain.