Any critical opinions expressed in this piece are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect those of management or staff. For anyone who didn’t know, Amazon.com is now in the business of creating original programing for streaming. And one of their newest creation available for streaming is, in my rarely humble opinion nothing short of brilliant. Over the Christmas holidays this year I was captivated by “The Man in the High Castle.”

The show is loosely based on the novel by the same name, written by author Philip K. Dick. In fact, the book won a Hugo award in 1963. As someone who grew reading science fiction, I’m a little embarrassed to admit that I was merely aware of his work. Of course I knew and loved the classic film “Blade Runner,” (Based on Dick’s book “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”) but I’d never read any of his books in their entirety until seeing ads for Amazon’s new series. When I saw the commercials for the new show I determined to read the original work prior to viewing the show based on it.

As a literature teacher I confess that there are books that we hold up as classics due largely to hubris, but that have no real literary value what’s so ever. They’re merely emblematic of a particular time, place and culture (or subculture). I would put Kerouac’s “On the Road,” in that category, it’s real but basically incomprehensible. Well, the Man in the High Castle, is not quite that bad (in my opinion) but any greatness in it is defined by its place in time and society. The book contains some decent character development, as well as psychological intrigue, but the most fascinating aspects to me are its examination of the human condition in a very dark world. The plot is (in my judgment), almost nonexistent, and the ending so abrupt I went looking for additional pages to tie up even one of the loose ends. In some circles the lack of clarity in writing is a measure of artistic integrity, particularly when applied to the counter culture writers of the nineteen sixties. In most cases I have to disagree. Dick created a fascinating world in this book but failed to fully explore it and its impact sufficiently for me.

My students can attest to the fact that rarely do I ever suggest a movie is better than the book from which it is adapted, but in this case “The Man in the High Castle,” really surpasses the parent work. The series goes a long way to building on the novel and reconstructing a storyline that is recognizable but far more interesting. And while there are terrific new characters, the original ones are spruced up and made a good deal more sympathetic than their counterparts in the novel. The end product is a story that is familiar, more clear but not without the mystery of the book. And while I’m certain that I’ve committed numerous literary heresies throughout this evaluation, readers should not merely accept my opinions but read, watch and judge for themselves.

The left is working overtime this election year to remind millennials of their servitude to political correctness. This new generation is like a tragic novel wherein the central character has lived his or her entire life under some sort of oppressive code and suddenly finds himself with something important to say, but finds it nearly impossible to break with convention and give utterance to what they believe. And political correctness is oppression in the guise of gentility. As a people we’ve allowed ourselves to become slaves of the opinions of others, as though our own opinions don’t matter and its jeopardizing our very lives in numerous ways. We’ve taught our children to comply with the national peer pressure; and the national leadership has exploited our own insecurity to the point that we’ve developed a cultural identity crisis.

And then came Trump and Cruz. Young people are now being presented with examples of courageous leaders teaching what is for this generation, a new lesson; speaking the truth will set you free. Now I’m the first to assert that Trump in particular doesn’t always speak that true in love, but he’s speaking it fearlessly, as is Cruz, and Americans are paying attention, as is evidenced by the fact that the two most outspoken candidates are leading the pack. The electorate is done with the placative voices of the likes of John Kasich and others. They, [we] want boldness.

And I think, young people are torn. They’ve been told what not to say for so long, and at the same time find that the truth carries a heavy punitive reward. They’re promised freedom of speech but warned not to use it. Like Mao’s “Hundred Flowers Campaign,” society voices a love of free expression, but shouts down and destroys anyone with the courage to live by the principle. So as people are being attracted by Trumps bellicose bluntness, or Cruz’s voice in the wilderness, the mainstream media is desperately trying to put out the fire of free speech by trying to hold the children they’ve raised to their false standard.

But as Chesterton once boldly proclaimed, emphatically it will not work! The American Constitution props open the door of free speech, and while it’s questionable how many college youths even know what the First Amendment even contains, they do know that they were not meant to live lives of submissive silence, where feelings trump (no pun intended) the truth.

I love this time of year! The Christmas Carols, the giving of gifts, merriment with friends and family, the Salvation Army Santa ringing bells for the less fortunate, the protestors demonstrating outside the Salvation Army… It truly is the most wonderful time of the year!

I remember as a young man just out of high school, spending some time working with a little Catholic Mission in the slums of New Orleans, (this was pre- Katrina if that matters to my readers). We would often offer aid and services to the city’s homeless who would seek shelter in squalor beneath over passes and bridges. When my friend and I spoke with residents we inquired as to the circumstances which lead to their poverty and homelessness. Frequently we were shocked to find that the residents had chosen their lifestyles in order to avoid social and familial responsibilities. One elderly man, clearly struggling with numerous addictions and health conditions told us flatly of a daughter with whom he refused to live because he found her rules and expectations confining. This period of my life did a couple of things for me. First off it gave me a profound respect for the labors of the church among the poor, coming through the little nuns of that mission. Secondly it de-mythologized the poor for me. Not that I believe in turning a blind eye to the plight of the underprivileged; emphatically the contrary, but it confronted me with the truth that we all suffer due to our own pride and mistakes and as such there are people in society who will not be helped. And then there’s the folks at “Occupy Tyler,” all five of them.

Today I saw this shameless little band of fools biting the hand that feeds, in all probability, them and others in the community. They were protesting the Salvation Army. The activists objected to the fact that the organization required a dollar a meal from its non-residents. They objected to the quality of the food. And they objected to the fact that the organization has any assets with which to provide the food that they do. And the frustrating thing is, not a one of them is smart enough to perceive the futility of their objections. Their demands (their words) were clearly stated; three meals a day seven days a week. This is the rankest kind of laziness, greed and envy; poorly covered by the thinnest veneer of “social justice” and “income inequality.” In our modern entitlement society, protest is a method of assuaging a guilty conscience. It says to the protestor; “I am not at fault for my shortcomings. Society is. Therefore, society (meaning the rest of us) should make up for the deficiencies of my life.” At least the elderly homeless man in New Orleans had the pride not to demand that his daughter provide for him on his own terms. He just moved under a bridge.

Tis the season for base appeals to human greed and entitlement. All around us advertisers attempt to place a price value on our memories and affections. There’s a memorable line where the fictional character Michael Scott, claims that Christmas is the time of year where we can actually place a monetary value on love. “I love you this many dollars, worth.”

Among the most notorious is Kay Jewelers. And it pains me to admit to the effectiveness of their seasonal ads. Even now I am certain that my readers are lightly humming “every kiss begins with Kay…” (at least you are now right)? Every year we’re treated to the likes of Dr. Quinn Medicine woman pedaling her tacky jewelry and advising us to “always keep an open heart;” advice which is far, far too non-specific by the way. An open heart to what exactly… greed, manufactured nostalgia, love in a box?… (I could have gotten a lot darker but I’ll refrain). I mean what could be more meaningful than a pendant necklace that only you, and million other customers possess? Doesn’t that make you feel a part of something larger than yourself? Oh wait no, church is supposed to do that, well church, faith, the baby Jesus… all that really meaningful stuff. For my part, if I gave the “Open Hearts collection,” to my wife as a Christmas gift I’d end up sleeping under the Christmas Tree. This gift is simply thoughtlessness in disguise using money as a costume. Just because a gift is expensive, doesn’t make it a good gift. Box jewelry is simply a white elephant gift for the wealthy.

And then there’s the car ads. Yeah like I’m going to buy anyone a new car for Christmas… The commercials must contain a white luxury car complete with big red bow, parked in fake white snow, as a fake family all dressed in white celebrate the gift one member has given to another. I can’t help but wonder if the giver is making all the payments or just the initial one. And what about the taxes? “Oh thanks so much for the car! Now I have the IRS demanding some of the joy I received over the holidays!

I always cringe when I hear people use the cliché “Jesus is the reason for the season.” Not because I think it’s not true, I’m just happen to vehemently oppose any admonition that rhymes. But the truth is this, Advent is about faith, and tradition, and memory. It’s about awaiting salvation. All things that will still be with us when the fake white snow has turned a grungy brown, and we’re making extended payments on gifts we couldn’t afford, and all the open hearts have closed.

Sports are obviously a huge part of the American culture, even more specifically, the culture of Texas. That’s pretty obvious just by living right here in East Texas, where sports at every level, high school, college and pro, are as big as it comes. One way to get that daily fix of sports is by tuning into Sports Talk on ESPN East Texas, 92.1 with Bill Coates. Coates hosts Sports Talk starting at 4 p.m. weekdays and often calls the action of live action games.

If you’re wanting to talk about the Robert E. Lee Red Raiders, Tyler Junior College Apaches or the Dallas Cowboys, Sports Talk gives you all that and more, with a great lineup of guests and expertise. The show also provides more than enough opportunity for the listeners to call in and give their two cents on a topic of choice.

On a side note: thumbs up to Coates on dealing with some of the callers he gets on a daily basis and handling the calls professionally.

Coates is a native of Tyler and a graduate of UT Austin where he got his start in radio before moving on to Dallas where he worked for SMU, TCU and the Dallas Mavericks as well as a variety of national radio networks. He is a four-time AP winner for Best Sportscast in Texas.