Friday, April 11, 2014

Burn the Witch! ~ by AHB

For those of you who haven't been keeping up with current events, there is yet another victim of the social justice warriors: Brenden Eich. Eich is a prominent member of silicon valley and the inventor of javascript (not to be confused with Java itself) and had a significant impact upon those of us who grew up in the early days of the world wide web.

The "problem" was back in 2008, he made a $1000 contribution to the proponents of the widely derided proposition 8. Prop 8 was a bill that passed in California to effectively ban same-sex marriages, and was ultimately ruled unconstitutional. While I do remember reading about people being up in arms about his "involvement" back then, what has happened recently just proves to me that like so many things, tolerance is only accepted when it comes in the form of a one-way street.

So, for 6 years, this has been in the back of the public's mind and lo and behold toward the end of march Eich was promoted to CEO of the Mozilla Foundation. Cheers and good times all around right? Wrong. The social justice warriors called for his head on a plate, with one of the largest dating sites, OKCupid, actually changing their message to mozilla firefox users saying "hey, uninstall firefox if you aren't bigoted" essentially. The outcry online as well as within mozilla about the boycotts basically ran Eich out of the job and into resignation barely a week after he took the reins. Eich himself stopped short of apologizing, but he basically said more or less "you have the right to your opinions and so do I."

This is just the latest in a long line of social justice gone wrong. The Duck Dynasty fiasco that took place last year if you recall, as well as Paula Deen's reputation and livelyhood was basically shattered into a million pieces for having admitted to "using the N-word" in the past. Chick-Fil-A being accosted because of the opinions of their CEO... Before that was the noted case with Don Imus and the "nappy headed hos" comment which ultimately cost him his place on TV.

Now I am all for people having a voice, but that is a two-way street in my view. Yes, freedom of speech (and the press) is technically a protection against the government and not the arena of social opinion. However, if we are going to ruin the life's work of a man simply for donating money to a cause (which at the time, was even a LIBERAL stance, hence the bill passed) where does it end? These people are acting like the god of the bible who convict people of thought crimes in their sleep. I hear all the time from my more democratic friends about such injustices, and when I remind them that their cult icon Billy C wrote DOMA into law, I get the whole gamut of rationalizations.

It's no different than this latest bullshit about the wage gap between men and women. Those of you who have read my piece on feminism knew that. What you are being told is outright bullshit with just the vaguest hint of truth. Yes it is true that women make 77¢ to every man's earned dollar, but this is not the result of gender discrimination at all. It would be just as asinine for me to say "People who don't go to college only make 64¢ on the dollar to every college grad! That's Degree-ism!" No, that's the way it is because there is a fundamental difference between what is offered to college grads and what is offered to non-college grads. The choices women make determine their income, and truly nothing more.

The pay gap nearly completely vanishes when you compare apples to apples. When you take never married no kids males and compare them to never married no kids females, in most fields it is the WOMEN who dominate the income scale in that arena. Also, just like other social justice bullshit, not one word is spoken about how we can narrow the gap in workplace fatalities and injuries. If you want the pay gap to narrow up and you want equality, why not strive for EQUALITY in everything? The reason is because getting maimed on the job is an undesirable situation and since it doesn't negatively impact women, who gives a shit?

People want their cake and eat it too, and they don't even want to bake the cake, pay for the baking of the cake, or work off calories after eating their cake. They want calorie free cake 24/7 because god dammit this is 'merica and fuck you for oppressing us and shit, we are not responsible for our actions but you better damn well be responsible for yours or we will fuck ya real slow, cause "whatever-ism" is real and you cannot deny! To deny is to comply you "whatever-ist" and we are sick of being held to any and all reasonable standards.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Why Welfare Sucks

For those who may not know, I've been working in workforce development for about two-and-a-half
years of my adult life.  And for the even less initiated, workforce development (WFD) is sort of a branch of social work.  As the name suggests, WFD deals in helping people who are unemployed--many of whom have found themselves unemployed because of some barrier in their lives--find employment and to attain/regain self-sufficiency.

For a year and some change, I was a job coach for people with disabilities.  Las year, I left that position to return to working with TANF recipients.  Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, is more commonly known as "welfare."  It refers specifically to monthly cash assistance given to families who meet certain income requirements.  Before we continue, readers must understand that TANF has nothing to do with food stamps or medicaid.

I truly believe in the importance of my work because, presently, we are faced with a very serious problem that not many Americans think about: third and fourth generation poverty.  We're talking about young adults whose parents were on welfare, their parents' parents were on welfare, and their great-grandparents were on welfare.  For these families, welfare is as much a way of life as the idea of getting a job, working your ass off, and supporting your family by the sweat of your brow is a way of life for most Americans.

It would seem that those who defend welfare and welfare recipients believe that most welfare recipients are just honest, hard-working Americans who are down on their luck.  But those are people who have never worked with the TANF population, and I am not one of those people.

While it's true that many of my clients have very real barriers that make it difficult for them to secure long-term employment, for most of my clients the only thing truly holding them back is themselves.  Their attitudes towards work, responsibility, and how to conduct oneself in public make it nearly impossible for many of them to land a decent job, especially since most of them are unwilling to change.


Believe it or not, this is how many of my male
clients would dress if I didn't tell them how to
dress appropriately for the workplace.
What attitudes do I speak of?  Well, for starters, I've heard this one on several occasions:  "This is not enough money!  I shouldn't have to work for only $400 a month."  Another variation of that is their response when we tell them their cash will be cut off because they didn't participate in their monthly work hours: "I don't understand why I have to do this."  I'm not exaggerating, either--these are true stories.  Many of my clients truly believe that they do not, and should not, have to work for their benefits.  Some of them even call it "slavery."

Many of my clients do not even possess a basic concept of responsibility, or what it means to be a responsible adult.  Just last week, two of my clients found out that they are pregnant again.  Both of them already have one child each, and since they are my clients that means they can't afford to take care of the children they already have.  Despite the fact that they know that they can get birth control for free at Planned Parenthood, they simply don't bother.  But that's okay, because the system will help them take care of their children.

Lastly, some of them can't even conduct themselves in an adult manner when they're out in public.  Many of them act like petulant children when their cash assistance is cut off due to their intransigence.  Often times they will try to pull on your heart strings in order to sucker you in to giving them a break.  Then when they discover that I don't give anyone a break, they become angry.  That anger is quickly met with scolding from me. 

Yes, I have to scold them like children--because they act like children.  They don't know any better.  Growing up, no one taught them a lick about treating others with respect.  They were only taught that they themselves are deserving of respect regardless of how they treat others.  It's no wonder that these clients of mine have never held a job for more than a year.  Hell, some of them can't even hold a job for more than a few months.

So why does welfare suck?  It's because of the people.  Welfare itself is a good program for those who fall on hard times.  But the problem is that an overwhelming majority of welfare recipients are serving a lifetime of hard times, and for whatever reason, they're totally fine with it.  They live in squalor, they raise their children like animals, they can't even muster the strength to be polite for 15 consecutive minutes, and guess what: they're all totally fine with all of that.

Some people think that welfare provides a disincentive to work.  I can tell you right now that is not the case.  Where I work, we tell every client that comes through the door that even a minimum wage, full-time job will triple their monthly income, and they can still receive food stamps and medicaid until they find a job that earns them more money.  Even knowing that, they're still content to stay on welfare until time runs out (Fact: TANF has a 5 year lifetime maximum).

They're a whole different breed.  They simply do not care about anything, and they bring down the whole system.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Case In Point: Hypocrisy about Race and Movie Casting

Orphan Annie was a white character.  Heimdall was a white character in the Thor comics.  Johnny
Storm was white in the Fantastic Four comics.  In Spider-Man, the villain Electro is white.  What do all of these characters have in common?

They've all had African-American actors cast in these roles, despite the fact that the characters are white, and everyone is told that we're supposed to be okay with that.

Okay, so maybe race doesn't really matter all that much when it comes to characters.  Afterall, being white is not really essential to their identity, so it's okay to cast non-white actors in these roles.

Well here's an interesting little factoid for you.  In the upcoming movie Pan--which is based on the story of Peter Pan--the role of the Indian princes Tiger Lilly has been cast to Rooney Mara.  Rooney Mara is most known for her role in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.  Here's the kicker: she's white, and people have a problem with that.

Check this out.

So, let me get this straight.  Although it's totally fine to cast people of color in the roles of white characters, it's not okay to cast white people in the roles of people of color.  Do I have it right?

You see, in my article from the other day where I griped about Johnny Storm being retconned as black, I made the assertion that people would make a big fuss if a white person was cast in the role of a black character.  Some people disagreed with me on that.  But here we are, a white woman cast in the role of a person of color (mind you, a FICTIONAL character), and that's simply not okay.

I heard somewhere--maybe it was one of the commenters here on CFGM--that it's okay to cast people of color in the roles of traditionally white characters, because those characters' identities are not really based on their race.  Do we see the implication here?  If you're black, Asian, Native American, or whatever, race is a big part of your identity and therefore should not be meddled with.  But if you're white, then that means nothing.

I understand that people of color historically have been marginalized by white people, but do we honestly think that racial pride, and the supression of racial pride, is the appropriate solution to greater harmony?

For the most part, it has already been ingrained in the minds of most white people.  Speaking for myself, the notion of being proud of being white is a foreign thought.  It makes no sense to me, because, well, I'm white.  I didn't choose to be white, I was just born that way.  I suppose that there are certain cultural things particular to being white, but I don't really see it that way.

What's more is that under no circumstances would I ever be permitted to say "I'm proud to be white," in a public forum, lest I be branded a racist and a hatemonger.  My entire life, society has taught me that being proud of my race is offensive and racist.  I've been taught that the color of my skin doesn't make me special.  If anything, the color of my skin should make me feel ashamed for the transgressions of my like-skinned ancestors.

A friend of mine, who happens to be black, said to me once in reference to women "dude, we're men.  Women blame us for everything."  I said to him, "well, how do you think I feel?  I'm a white man.  Everyone blames me for everything.  I'm blamed for sexism, slavery, white supremacy, racism in general.  And as luck would have it, I'm also Catholic.  So I get blamed for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Conquistadors, and pedophilic clergymen."

"Because I am a white, Catholic male, I'm blamed for over one-and-a-half thousand years of sexism, and brutal oppression of everyone not white.  Even though I've spent a good portion of my life fighting for social justice, none of that matters.  Because of the color of my skin, everyone's suffering is ultimately all my fault."

My friend thought that was pretty funny, because of course I was being facetious, but the sad part about it is that this is actually going on.  People of color are taught to be proud of the color of their skin, and white people are taught to be ashamed of it.  This goes to show you that when given the opportunity, most humans will do their damndest to marginalize "the other."

To anyone who is a person of color, I have one bit of advice for you.  If you truly desire social equality, if you want to stop being discriminated against because of the color of your skin, then you need to stop believing that the color of your skin makes you special.  If I'm not special because I'm white, then you're not special because you're not white.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

"Big Data" bigger than NSA let on, no one with a brain surprised

When Ed Snowden originally leaked the classified documents that exposed the NSA's "meta data"
collection program--the NSA insisted that the collection did not include recorded phone conversations.  The claim was that "meta data" just provided call information such as when the call was made, on what carrier, and to what country that call went to.  They balked when nearly everyone on the planet accused them of recording the phone calls of innocent American citizens which, by the way, is 150,000% illegal.

But today, the fears of any American with a brain were substantiated.  Through NSA's MYSTIC and RETRO programs, the NSA is able to retrieve and listen to a recorded phone conversation made by any person in the U.S. up to one month in the past.  Essentially, 100% of American citizen phone calls are recorded and kept in data storage for a month.  I just have one question:

When will all of the charges against Snowden be dropped so he can return to the US unaccosted?

I find it absolutely baffling that there are still people out there who actually believe Snowden to be a traitor who deserves punishment.  I've heard it all.  "Well, he technically broke the law, and there are committees and processes that handle this sort of thing."  The problem with that is the fact that despite the "committees" and the "processes" in place to handle the malfeasance of the US intelligence community, these illegal programs still came to fruition.

There are two conclusions that we can draw from these revelations.

1.  Congress has completely lost their grip on these agencies, and the folks at the NSA and CIA are essentially allowed to run amok and do whatever they want.  The intelligence oversight committee is so uninterested in anything, that it has unknowingly allowed the NSA to spy on American citizens at-large, an action that is in violation of so many laws that it should make anyone's head spin.

2.  Congress is in on it.  They are fully aware of the illegal activity going on in the NSA, and they're fine with it.  Not only are they fine with it, they are complicit as they have failed to prosecute and punish those who have willfully broken the law.  Their complicity also must run much deeper, because programs like RETRO and MYSTIC don't just spring up over night, and "big data" certainly didn't just manifest itself out of the ether.  It has taken years to develop these programs, and Congress has bankrolled these illegal actions.

Sadly, scenario #2 is more likely to be the truth, and that is precisely why Ed Snowden was justified in doing what he did.  The "secret courts" and the "committees" and the "processes" would never have stopped these programs, and they never would have prosecuted those involved.  One can argue that if these processes truly worked, then these programs would never have existed in the first place.  But Ed Snowden knew--as anyone who has ever worked in intelligence knows--that the secret courts and the committees are just puppet shows.

So what do we do?  Well, let's start with a simple list:

Dianne Feinstein,
California
Chairman

Saxby Chambliss,
Georgia

John D. Rockefeller IV,
West Virginia

Richard Burr,
North Carolina

Ron Wyden,
Oregon

Barbara A. Mikulski,
Maryland

James E. Risch,
Idaho

Mark Udall,
Colorado

Daniel Coats,
Indiana

Mark Warner,
Virginia

Martin Heinrich,
New Mexico

Angus King,
Maine

Marco Rubio,
Florida

Susan Collins,
Maine

Tom Coburn,
Oklahoma

These are the members of the Senate Select Committe on Intelligence.  If justice is to be served, then those who failed to identify and punish the perpetrators should be held accountable.  Not one of these fools stopped what happened, and so far I've not heard a peep out of any of them about working to scrap the illegal programs.

Write letters, make phone calls.  Demand from our representatives that something be done about this assault on American citizens.  And, should you reside in one of these states, for the love of God: Don't Vote for Them!

Saturday, March 1, 2014

News Flash: Johnny Storm Is Not Black

Why didn't we get Denzel
to play him?
I was reading around a week ago or so, and I saw that a new cast for the Fantastic Four reboot was  revealed.  I've never really been a fan of the characters, but something bothered me with the new cast:  the actor playing Johnny Storm is black . . .

Now, at first many of you might be inclined to say "woah!  Jack, do you have a problem with black actors?!  That's incredibly racist of you!"  First: no, I don't have a problem with black actors--or black people for that matter.  And secondly: no, it is not racist of me, and here's why.

I have a serious problem with the new trend of casting actors who do not match the race/ethnicity of the characters from the original source material in some cases.  Let's consider this particular case.  For those who don't know, the story behind Johnny Storm, a.k.a. Human Torch, is that he is the biological brother of the Invisible Girl.  If you notice in the article, the actress playing Invisible Girl is as white as the driven snow.

So now, the writers have to make up some shenaniganry about them being half-siblings, or maybe siblings through adoption.  They could go with some sort of mixed race idea, but it is rare that a mixed child takes the traits entirely of one parent.  I suppose it doesn't really make a difference, but this underscores a serious problem with post-modern American thought.  They don't really care about making a compelling story:  they just didn't want an all-white cast.

I know there's no way to prove that, but what other explanation can there be?  I watched the Les Miserables 25th anniversary concert a couple years ago, and the actor playing the role of Javert was black.  I think the woman playing Fantine was Asian.  Both actors were very talented (especially the actress playing Fantine--amazing voice), but the problem is that the characters themselves are supposed to be white.  In 19th century France, it would have been virtually impossible for a man of African descent being a high-level police inspector in the capital city.  But more importantly, Victor Hugo's character was white.

I've contemplated this for some time now.  I wanted to be sure that my thinking was straight before I voiced this opinion.  I considered the idea that perhaps there is some sort of artistic reasoning behind it.  But more than likely, it's more about diversity and inclusion than it is about art.  Considering the Fantastic Four film will likely have a terrible script and will probably fare no better than the previous F4 attempt, I highly doubt the decision to cast a black Johnny Storm had anything to do with art.  A majority of Hollywood writers churn out steaming piles of garbage on a regular basis, so forgive me if I have little faith in the artistic integrity of modern film writing.

It is not about art: it is about agenda.  Liberalmerica wants to send a message: people of color are allowed to play characters that are traditionally white.  It's sort of like the whole "Black Jesus," thing.  For a while, many people were saying "Jesus was black."  I understand what they were trying to say, that the common depiction of Jesus being a white man is historically inaccurate, but Jesus was not black, either.  Jesus was of Middle Eastern descent, so if anything, Jesus would have looked more Arab than anything.


He would make a great Jim!  Or maybe
we could cast him as Shaft!
If you don't believe this is about agenda, then consider this: would it be socially acceptable for a white actor to play a traditionally black character?  What if we got Benedict Cumberbatch to play Jim in an adaptation of Huckleberry Finn?  Or how about casting Michael Fassbender as Black Panther?  We know what the public outcry would be:  "These characters are supposed to be black!"


Here's the deal: Jesus was Middle Eastern, Jim in Huckleberry Finn is black, and Johnny Storm is white.  If you can convince me that any of that can or should be changed in the name of art, then I'll take it all back.  But don't be fooled if you think a black Human Torch has *anything* to do with art.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Is Being Offensive Really All That Bad?

Lucky for me, blogs have a function that sends the comments made by readers to your email.  From
time-to-time, little gems of wonder come floating through my inbox, notifying me that an old article of mine has received a fresh comment.

Usually, it's comments on the article about Americans being dumbasses (see 80% of Americans Are Functionally Retarded); and because the universe has a sense of humor, the commenters on that article always tell me that the plugs in the picture are European.  It always gives me a chuckle.

But just yesterday, I received a comment from a user on my article "Jesus Digs My Style."  In the article, I featured the picture to the right.  It's one of my all-time favorites: Jesus flipping the bird.  I know that a lot of people find it offensive, and this user did not disappoint.  Here is what she said:

"Every right entails responsibility. I am very ashamed for having seen this image. You may call it anything you want, but for me, this is plain disrespect for anyone's belief and faith. You could have at least keep it to yourself. I did not read amything you have to say in your blog, the picture says it all. I'm not trying to be righteous here but seeing this, I feel ashamed how cruel men can be, and I have, in many ways, disappointed my God and i am very sorry for that. If there is one thing I want to ask from you, use your right to speak, for a cause. The world will be a lot better when people are sensitive enough not to harm and insult others. May my God, Jesus, bless you."
The people who know me personally know that I rarely shy from the opportunity to express my true feelings on important matters.  Many people find some of the things I say to be offensive, but fortunately my friends give me the chance to at least explain myself.  Sure, I offended this woman, but this particular line was most salient to me:

 "I did not read amything you have to say in your blog, the picture says it all."
 
Yes, words can be hurtful, and one should not ignore the feelings of others.  But too often do we shy away from saying things that need to be said all for the sake of avoiding offense.

Why?

For starters, we don't want people to think that we are insensitive assholes.  I, for one, do not relish legitimately offending someone I really care about.  Actually, when a friend of mine tells me that he or she is legitimately offended by something I've said, I immediately apologize because I don't like feeling as though I've done wrong to someone close to me.  I understand the desire to avoid being offensive--at least, I understand my own desire to avoid being deeply and truly offensive.

What I also understand about myself is that I do not enjoy being censored in any way.  There is a difference between self-censorship--fighting the urge to say something edgy because I don't want to actually hurt anyone's feelings--and being censored by others, being told that I'm not allowed to say something because it is "offensive."  When I am told that I can't or shouldn't say something, my immediate response is to ask "why?"

I should probably start posing a different question to people, because simply asking them "why" never elicits the response I'm looking for.  Instead, I should ask people this:  if someone you loved was engaging in incredibly destructive behavior--like drugs or dog fighting--would you not tell them that they have a problem simply because you don't want to hurt their feelings?  I would hope that any good friend would tell that person what they need to hear: stop using drugs, because you're destroying yourself and taking down your loved ones with you.

All opinions--even the crazy ones--have some truth to them.  I'm not suggesting that all opinions are "right."  The truth may be that the expression reveals something about the person who said it.  Shows like Family Guy and South Park go to great lengths to be offensive in the name of comedy, but you know what?  Sometimes, there really is something to some of their "offensive" humor.

So is it really all that bad to be offensive?  I think not, but that's because I see it as a matter of personal freedom and an exercise in discovering truth.  The most critical error in all of human history is that we humans consistently fail to listen to each other.  If that commenter had actually taken the time to read some of my writing, she would have seen that I do use my voice for a cause.  Perhaps it's my own cause, but I think increased self-awareness and fostering honest, open dialogue are worthy pursuits.

She couldn't bear to set her feelings aside and make an attempt to get to the heart of my message.  As a result, she's missed out on an alternative perspective on life--perhaps a way of thinking that she has not been exposed to.  She has given up on the pursuit of truth.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Recent(ish) Games that are Well Worth the Money

If Valve's Steam client were a woman, it would nag me about how much of my life I've wasted playing video games.  I don't consider it to be a waste seeing as how it's a form of entertainment like any other.  I could easily say that some people are "wasting time" by watching movie or television, but honestly, who cares how we choose to entertain ourselves?

There are a few games that have been released in the past 5 years that offer hundreds of hours of replay value and, thus, are worth more than you actually pay for them (especially if you buy them on sale).  So for anyone who just wants a great game to play--a game that is truly worth the money--here is a short list of some of the games that have sucked away my attention in the recent past.

Fallout 3/Fallout New Vegas

Arguably two of the best games of our generation, both of these titles--developed by Bethesda and Obsidian respectively--are set in a post-nuclear war America.  The cultural theme is 1950's sci-fi, and when that is blended in with vast open worlds, you have a recipe for awesome.  The gameplay is a first person shooter mixed with elements of RPG with a level-up system that is engaging and extremely dynamic.  Probably the best thing about the games is the variety in play styles available to the player.

Are you a crazy-ass bastard who likes to rush into a group of asshats, smashing in their heads with a sledge hammer?  Are you more the careful, stealthy type who likes to pick off his enemies before they even knew what hit them?  Or maybe you just enjoy firing mini-nukes in the middle of a town.  Whatever your flavor, these games have it.  Although the wastes of post-apocalyptic Washington DC is a surprisingly breath-taking setting (Fallout 3), I prefer fallout New Vegas for the simple fact that you can actually ally yourself with the "bad guys."

Both of these games offer hundreds of hours of gameplay.  Just to give you an idea, one playthrough typically takes me about 80 hours.  Be warned: the humor is dark, and you can be really, really evil if you so choose, so these games are not for the faint of heart.

Fallout 3: Game of the Year Edition and Fallout New Vegas: Ultimate Edition can be purchased on Steam for $19.99 each.  Each of these includes all of the DLC packs.

Civilization V

A turn based strategy game, Civilization V lets you build up a civilization from the stone age all the way into a futuristic era.  You can play as a whole host of historical civilizations (I always opt for Rome).  Throughout the game you direct your scientific discoveries, you choose your forms of government, and you even decide what your religion is like.

As time progresses, you meet other civilizations vying for precious resources.  You can either befriend them or crush them.  Are you more into economics?  Well then you can focus on being a trade hub.  Want to conquer the world?  Build an army worthy of your glory!  Or maybe you just like being all diplomatic--that works too!  With the infinite variations and directions you can take, and with 6 different ways to win the game based on play style, this title offers limitless replay value.

Sid Meyer's Civilization V: Complete Edition can be purchased on steam for $49.99.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Honestly, any Elder Scrolls title is more than worth the money, but Skyrim is just the latest entry in this stellar series.  From developers Bethesda, Skyrim offers just about anything the heart could desire.  With a plethora of different classes/play styles, tons of quest content, and an awe-inspiring, winder landscape open world, this game is truly one of the great gaming masterpieces of our time.

Steam tells me that I have sunk 356 hours into the game since I bought it in 2011.  To add to that, there are several DLC packs that add more quest lines, loots, and the like for even more content.  The graphics are solid.  The AI is decent.  And the leveling system is a good mix between classic Elder Scrolls and the perks system common to the Fallout games.

As with many Bethesda games, if you take the time to understand how the game works, you can truly forge a hero of legend who has no problem one-shotting even the most hardened of dragons.  The game offers a very hard setting and a legendary setting.  Legendary is like a nightmare mode in which the game becomes insanely difficult.  This is recommended for players who have already progressed quite far into the game.

Just like in Fallout, a single playthrough can take up to 80 hours assuming you tackle 90% of the content.

The Elder Scrolls V: Legendary Edition can be purchased on Steam for $59.00.  This edition includes all of the DLC packs.  The original game can be purchased for $29.99 on Steam.