Reddit mentions: The best tv shows books

I have all the official companion books (which I bought as they came out alongside the show)

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

I'm sure I have one with a green cover that focuses on Seasons two and three but can't find it online. Found it! I swear it's green IRL though

They include behind the scenes photos, trivia etc. I really like them all.

I also had an unofficial guide of the first four or five seasons which I also found interesting. Ooh, I found that one

My pleasure - Ted Carpenter's book is here, highly recommended. :)

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1510703365

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0997287012

It's not a grand conspiracy that capitalist nations and their ruling classes and rich people seek to demonize socialism with all means available, including convincing everyone of what should normally seem to be absurd lies -- it's what you'd expect, and they of course own all of these news media. That the the state department, CIA, and other foreign policy organs of imperialism promotes false information expecting it to get uncritically reported by the mass media is plainly visible once you understand how it works and it's also completely unsurprising.

Well its been a while but look at the video review for the fringe book some guy posted. It clearly has an image of the wave sink device, you could probably scan this to get a relatively high res version.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fringe-Septembers-Notebook-Tara-Bennett/dp/1781166099

This book will answer your question.

TLDR:

• kids (and adults) get addicted, moody, hyperactive, go through withdrawal without TV
  
  
• attention span and ability to delay gratification are diminished
  
  
• watching TV the brain goes into a "passive" state that doesn't occur while reading, this state is not actually relaxing (actually low-level stress)...
  
  That's off the top of my head, there's definitely more.

Another way the left has become like fundamentalist Christianity.

Theres also John Winchesters Journal, but I don't know if they make it any more.

here it is on Amazon http://www.amazon.ca/books/dp/0061706620

You may want to read up on Cultural imperialism and Linguistic imperialism.

Other resources: http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Cultural_imperialism.html

http://politics.as.nyu.edu/admin/staging/IO/4600/rauschenberger_thesis.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Entertainment-Media-Imperialism-Globalization/dp/0415519829


Edit: Just curios, what language do you consider your mother tongue? What is your ethnicity? Don't want to sound intrusive, but this kind of stuff gets my curiosity going.

http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Taboo-Follies-Fables-Terrorism/dp/041591759X

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Spectacle-Terrorism-Uncertainty-Imagination/dp/159451240X

And a little warm-up:
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/08/25_lakoff.shtml

How can anyone believe the US government? They are proven liars. Remember WMD? Their intelligence is agenda driven. It's not unbiased or impartial. This has been reported many times. E.g. https://www.amazon.com/Spooked-Manipulates-Media-Hoodwinks-Hollywood/dp/1510703365

Straight people in general obsess with homosexuality, not just homophobes. It's a huge cultural moment. We're an Other and we hold secrets to life and sex they think are refused to them.

For this, I bring your attention to gay writer Mark Simpson's: It's a Queer World: Deviant Adventures in Pop Culture.

Simpson argues that we're shifting from a society in which heterosexuality is deemed "normal" and homosexuality "abnormal" to one in which different combinations of sexuality and gender roles are totally compatible. As that happens, the assurances that heterosexuals get for being heterosexual -- stability, commitment, security -- become increasingly called into question. The rise in divorce and changing gender roles is making heterosexuality seem as not so stable as it once was. After all, how is heterosexuality "normal" when it is exposed for being as fucked up and dysfunctional as it is? Straight people no longer have any guarantees (if they ever did) that their life will be any better when buying into the heterosexual norm, so what do you do? And of course by the "norm" I mean cultural norms and the way heterosexuality is expressed, not sexual attraction per se.

The elevation of us gays to prominent cultural figures; no, a cultural force or tsunami, then has much to do with this breakdown. As heterosexuals try to grapple with this new reality, we gays are here living in our own reality which we've defined and made central to our lives. We gays have defined ourselves and have come to grips with who we really are, while straight people are increasingly unsure of themselves. Therefore, straight people fear what we represent but also envy us, and are beginning to copy us in everything from style to acting as passive figures of desire who are acted upon and desired by women, not the other way around.

> Whatever the truth behind the sex-confessional imperative of the late twentieth century, homosexuals are, more than anyone else, creatures of this "secret of sex" narrative. It is taken as a given that it is their "secret of sex" -- so much more secret because it was so much more shameful -- which holds the key to their identity; their sexuality is what defines them and is how they choose to define themselves when they "come out." In fact, the coming-out narrative is a myth for our time, a myth in which the homosexual takes on the status of a modern religious hero who, through a process of testing sexual self-inquiry, soul-searching, and self-examination, arrives at the answer to the question "Who am I?" in terms of the sex-confessional question "Whom do I desire?" and then shares that discovery with the world. Or, more succinctly, the homosexual learns to say "yes" to sex and thus to himself. And saying "yes" to oneself is by far the most virtuous thing anyone can do these days; saying "no," the worst possible crime. In short, the homosexual is the existential, expressive star of our modern, individualistic, introspective universe.

For another example, see straight football star Michael Irvin "coming out" as a supporter of GLBT equality on the cover of Out magazine. We're in a bizarre moment in which the ultimate expression of heterosexuality in the Western mind -- a black football star -- is redefined as not only supportive of gay rights, but also pampered, dressed-up, exfoliated and desired for everyone to see.

YK: The value of the debate for many political scientists is questionable. Given that people (as a number of questions in this AMA have rightly suggested!) are skilled at dismissing and ignoring the information that they disagree with, it is difficult to imagine that people are going to be persuaded by anything that happens at the debate. Some scholars have seen some post-debate shifts among certain groups of voters (for example, Hillygus and Jackman’s 2003 [piece] (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-5907.00041/full) on decision-making in the 2000) election, but arguably responses to the debate may be based on more than just the facts discussed (Jamie Druckman shows this in his [paper] (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00015/full) on debate winners):
There is also some research that suggests that the actual debate – candidates arguing and fighting – may lead people to either mistrust or retreat from politics. In some of her [work] (https://www.amazon.com/Your-Face-Politics-Consequences-Uncivil-Media/dp/0691173532/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1478274480&sr=8-2&keywords=Diana+Mutz) Diana Mutz shows that political debates – especially if they are “uncivil” – can have negative effects on people.

In our book, Samara Klar and I suggest that seeing argumentative politics makes people want to hide their partisanship and pretend to be independents.

So, I think some of this points to the idea that debates aren’t actually all that helpful.

On the other hand, its possible that debates are “exciting” – which makes more people tune in just to see the spectacle, which helps people learn something about politics. So, this may be a silver lining of the combative debate.