Who Killed the USFL? Donald Trump

United States Football League - USFL

When I recently read David Cay Johnston’s excellent new book, The Making of Donald Trump, I learned about his involvement in the United States Football League or, as it is normally referred to, the USFL. I did know that Trump had something to do with the league, but not much else. I did not know that he was likely the single biggest reason for the failure of the league.

According to Johnston, the USFL was formed largely to appeal to the vanity of rich men. It was a way for rich men who weren’t rich enough to buy into the NFL to have their own professional football teams. But that doesn’t mean that the project itself wasn’t financially viable. The USFL was set up to play in the spring. It didn’t directly compete with the NFL. So for people who just couldn’t get enough football, it was there. Also, ticket prices were cheaper, so that was good. Games averaged about 25,000 people in attendance in the first year. That’s shockingly good.

What’s more, the league was formed at roughly the same time as ESPN. So they were able to get television contracts worth millions. There seems to me no doubt that had the USFL taken things slowly as it was originally conceived, it would either now be huge or have merged with the NFL. Instead, the league existed for only three seasons.

This is shocking given that the first season had been so good and the future looked so bright at that point. There was just one problem: Donald Trump bought one of the teams, the New Jersey Generals, after the first season. It’s amazing to me that so many people think Trump is good at business. As most people around here know: I don’t think that much of supposed business acumen in general. I think there really are only two things: competent management (which can easily be learned) and dumb luck. Trump has none of former.

Trump started his ownership as you might imagine. He immediately crushed the salary cap. He wasn’t the first to cross it but he really accelerated it, making what should have been a conservative business (at that point anyway) into a high risk gambit. At first, this helped attendance. And certainly having Trump around didn’t hurt the profile of the USFL. But by the third season, some teams were losing money.

This provided a great opportunity for Trump. You see, he wasn’t interested in the USFL. He later claimed that it would always have been “small potatoes.” He appears to have only been interested in using it to get into the NFL. So he convinced a number of team owners to sue the NFL. They claimed that the USFL wanted to play in the fall and that they couldn’t because the NFL had them frozen out because it had a lock on all the television contracts.

So they were making an antitrust case against the NFL. And they won! The jury claimed that the NFL did indeed have a monopoly. And they awarded the USFL $1 in damages. That’s not a typo. Apparently, the jury wasn’t too happy about the case. And when the USFL appealed the award, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it and indicated that it knew the case was just a cheap attempt to use the courts to get into the NFL without having to earn it.

Note: such an antitrust case might have worked after 10 or 15 years when the USFL was bringing in 60,000 in attendance. But this was a case where the league had just started. As it was, attendance went up in the second season, but it was back down to where it started in the third season. So there is the answer to question in the headline: Donald Trump killed the USFL.


USFL image taken from Wikipedia. Licensed under Fair Use.

Quantifying the Cost of the War on Drugs

Alice Speri - War on DrugsThe War on Drugs may have failed, but it certainly hasn’t ended: every 25 seconds in the US, someone is arrested for drug possession.

Arrests for the possession and personal use of drugs are boosting the ranks of the incarcerated at astonishing rates — with 137,000 people behind bars for drugs on any given day, and 1.25 million every year. Possession of even tiny quantities of illicit drugs is criminalized in every state, a felony in most, and the No 1 cause of all arrests nationwide. And while marijuana is now legal in a handful of states and decriminalized in others, in 2015 police nationwide made over 547,000 arrests for simple marijuana possession — more than for all categories of violent crime combined. These arrests are feeding people into a criminal justice system that’s rife with inefficiencies, abuse, and racism, and compounding drug users’ substance abuse with the lifelong impact of a criminal record.

The staggering numbers, detailed in a report released today by Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union, shed new light on the colossal impact of the criminalization of drug use, as well as on the discriminatory impact of its enforcement. These laws have done nothing to stem the public health problem of drug addiction and in the process have destroyed countless lives and cost incalculable amounts of public resources in arrests, prosecution, and incarceration, the report charges.

—Alice Speri
Report: Every 25 Seconds, Cops Arrest Someone for Drug Possession

Alfred Hitchcock and the Joke of Film Criticism

Alfred HitchcockI’ve watched two Alfred Hitchcock films this last week: The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) and Foreign Correspondent (1940). In the past, I’ve said that Hitchcock was a great genre filmmaker. I think that is a case where my friends are right: I do overuse superlatives. Watching both of these films was depressing.

Foreign Correspondent is the better of the two. It can be forgiven its propagandistic character. But in terms of pure cinema, it’s boring. D W Griffith was doing far more interesting work 25 years earlier. And that’s to say nothing of Sergei Eisenstein. It’s a by-the-numbers directorial job. But overall, the film reminded me of nothing so much as what Howard Hawks would produce if he lacked the talent and care. And as much as I love Hawks’ work, film critics (rightly) don’t pick over his films for deep meanings.

The Man Who Knew Too Much is typical of Alfred Hitchcock in the 1950s and 1960s. I think it is fine to use rear projection. But I can’t think of a major filmmaker who used it so obsessively and so badly. Every time it is used, it pulls me out of the story. And that’s especially true here where much of the early second unit work from Morocco is gorgeous. But it doesn’t too much matter because the story itself is so anemic, it could almost be an episode of Leave It to Beaver.

Greatest Film Ever

But it was Foreign Correspondent that really got me thinking. It was made less than a year before Citizen Kane and the contrast could not be more stark. Whereas Correspondent told an utterly predictable story in a totally conventional way, Kane presented a modern tragedy if a revolutionary way.

This turn toward thinking of Alfred Hitchcock as a great film director has everything to do with fetish made of him by the French New Wave.

But okay, Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever blah, blah, blah. That’s always been a bit hard to stomach, but sure: Kane is a spectacular film. But where does this business of it being the “best” film come from? It’s a silly idea, so it should surprise no one that it comes from polling of film critics. It comes specifically from Sight & Sound magazine. Since 1952, they’ve been asking every ten years.

In 1952, Citizen Kane didn’t even make the list. The film was, of course, hugely influential among filmmakers. But critics had not yet been told that they should admire the film. It wasn’t until the 1962 poll that Kane showed up on the list at all — and at number one no less. It stayed there until the 2012, when it dropped to number two.

Alfred Hitchcock Becomes “Great”

What was the new greatest film ever made? Vertigo. That’s right: not only an Alfred Hitchcock film, but not even one of his better films. But I guess the critic community had to pick some Alfred Hitchcock film. And it couldn’t be an obvious one like Psycho. So why not Vertigo? It works as well as any other.

The interesting thing is that the critics who would now have us believe that Vertigo is the greatest film ever are only doing so because they’ve been taught to. Hitchcock didn’t even show up on the list until the 1982 poll, when Vertigo tied for 7th place with two vastly superior films: Michelangelo Antonioni’s L’Avventura and Welles’ The Magnificent Ambersons.

This turn toward thinking of Alfred Hitchcock as a great film director has everything to do with the fetish made of him by the French New Wave. And the modern critics just can’t get past that. They’ve all read Hitchcock/Truffaut. François Truffaut thought Hitchcock was great, so not only is Hitchcock great, but everything he touched is a masterpiece. It’s just sad. Of course, the same thing happened to Welles. But at least Welles was a brilliant and important filmmaker. The more important point is that it’s just not quite so cool anymore to obsess about him. Trust me: in 2032, Vertigo will not top the Sight & Sound list.

Where Are the Greats?

What’s absurd is that nowhere on the list is anything by Griffith (although Intolerance was number five in 1952). Eisenstein suddenly disappeared in 2012. That’s not to say that the 2012 list is a bad one. It’s a list that contains nine great films. And at the top of list is an odd, moderately entertaining film by Alfred Hitchcock. It shows what a joke film critics are.

  1. Vertigo
  2. Citizen Kane
  3. Tokyo Story
  4. Rules of the Game
  5. Sunrise
  6. 2001: A Space Odyssey
  7. The Searchers
  8. Man with a Movie Camera
  9. Passion of Joan of Arc

For the record, I think The Searchers is an odd film to pick for John Ford. And there are lots of Fellini films I like more than . For that matter, many of these films are odd selections. But they are all important films — all except for Vertigo. Alfred Hitchcock was not an important director.

Clarinet Practice, Mental Health, and Life’s Meaning

Clarinet Practice and Life's MeaningI hope they let me practice the clarinet.

As I write this, it is Tuesday night. And I can’t bear to write anything coherent — certainly not an Odd Words post. I’m just not up to that kind of thinking. So: rant.

I’ve been thinking a lot about Melville’s short story “Bartleby, the Scrivener.” As you may recall, Bartleby is really good at his job. The narrator describes how even with Bartleby’s refusal to do the copy checking that is critical to their profession, his work is pretty much perfect. This is part of why the narrator doesn’t get rid of Bartleby earlier.

I feel a lot like Bartleby: useful but fundamentally out of sync with the world. And I imagine that the only end for me is starving to death in some loony bin.

Or let’s take a more modern reference: Rantés in Man Facing Southeast. In that case, I effectively get murdered. I like that idea more.

Meaning Beyond Clarinet Practice

What have you got for me universe?! Will I be destroyed by my own dysfunction or by forcing someone to murder me because of my own dysfunction?

I realize: to most people these seem pretty much the same. But Rantés strikes me as heroic whereas Bartleby is just tragic.

It seems to be that I deserve the tragic but I wish for the heroic.

And it is doubtless a good sign that I still wish. But it has gotten to the point where the wish is vague. What is the point of all this?

I’ve discussed Sudoku Meaning before. That’s the kind of meaning one gets from being pleasantly occupied. I’ve put it down in the past. But I have the terrible feeling that there is nothing else.

So I imagine my end in the only way that makes sense. The only fundamental meaning in life is death. That’s the only real meaning life has to offer.

But as I work my way to death in the mental hospital, I hope they will let me practice the clarinet.

Paul Ryan Wasn’t Helping Trump Anyway

Paul RyanThe New York Times reported what is supposed to be big news, Paul Ryan Won’t Defend Donald Trump, Upsetting Trump and GOP Hard-Liners. It starts with the absurd claim, “House Speaker Paul D Ryan dealt a hammer blow to Donald J Trump’s presidential candidacy Monday, dashing any remaining semblance of party unity and inviting fierce backlash from his own caucus by announcing that he would no longer defend Mr Trump’s candidacy.” How is this a hammer blow?

Is Ryan a big Trump surrogate? No. Their relationship has been, at best, strained. It took him until June to endorse Trump’s candidacy. And then Trump paid him back by waiting until August to finally endorsed Paul Ryan’s re-election. And when he did so, Paul Ryan didn’t even show up.

Paul Ryan Hasn’t Been Good for Trump

Ryan has been more well known for things like calling on Trump to release his taxes. And calling a Trump statement “the textbook definition of a racist comment.” And most recently releasing a statement saying, “I am sickened by what I heard today.”

So again: where is the hammer blow? All that has happened is that Paul Ryan isn’t going to campaign for Trump for the next four weeks. Instead, he’s going to campaign for down-ballot candidates. But you know: that’s the same thing. Trump supporters don’t want to see Ryan at Trump’s rallies anyway. I suppose that more reasonable Republicans (ones that don’t show up to Trump rallies) might see Ryan with Trump and feel more comfortable voting for him. But after last Friday’s video? And what seems likely to be more embarrassments to come? I just don’t see Trump being harmed by this. It could even help him.

Now Paul Ryan Could Help Trump

So this is not going to change things for Trump. Even with a clear commitment to Trump, I don’t think Ryan really helps.

One way it could help Trump is by stopping Paul Ryan from having to respond to every new Trump outrage. This is where the “defend” comes from in the headline. So let’s suppose that the police arrest Trump when they find the skeletons of dozens of adolescent boys buried at Mar-a-Lago. Paul Ryan won’t need to demand an investigation. He won’t need to say that it’s a textbook case of pedophilic serial killing. He won’t be required to release a statement about how sickened he is. Instead, Paul Ryan can say, “I told you: I’m not defending Donald J Trump anymore!”

This whole article in The New York Times is typical of the press thinking things are important because the press thinks they are important. Paul Ryan certainly has maintained a high approval rating among Republicans. But we certainly haven’t seen any polls recently. The last one I could find was from back in July when he had an approval rating of 71 percent. But note: Donald Trump had an approval rating of 65 percent. And here’s the key: what do Republicans really know about Paul Ryan?

Ryan’s Soft Support

I think this is key. Paul Ryan knows that his support among Republicans is soft. That’s why he won’t come out and rescind his endorsement. He also knows that his grip on the House speakership is loose. According to Vox, after leaving the conference call yesterday morning where he laid out his decision, “He had to get back on the call to address accusations that he was abandoning the nominee.”

So this is not going to change things for Trump. Even with a clear commitment to Trump, I don’t think Ryan really helps. So this is really nothing to Trump.

What Paul Ryan Cares About

But it is a big deal to Ryan. In the call yesterday morning, Ryan reportedly said, “You [Republican House members] all need to do what’s best for you in your district.” That’s all that Ryan is doing. As Fortune noted, “Ryan’s message appeared to signal his disbelief in Trump’s ability to turn the campaign around with four weeks until election day.” This is all tax cuts and deregulation. If Ryan thought Trump would win, he wouldn’t have changed a thing.

Is Donald Trump’s Stock Falling?

Nate Silver - Trump's Falling StockThe second presidential debate on Sunday night was a strange one, with Donald Trump appearing to be on the brink of a meltdown in the first 20 to 30 minutes and then steadying himself the rest of the way. But here’s the bottom line: Based on post-debate polls, Hillary Clinton probably ended the night in a better place than she started it. And almost without question, she ended the weekend — counting the debate, the revelation on Friday of a 2005 tape in which Trump was recorded appearing to condone unwanted sexual contact against women, and the Republican reaction to the tape — in an improved position.

At times during the past two weeks, but particularly on Saturday afternoon as prominent Republicans were denouncing or unendorsing Trump one after another, it has seemed like Trump’s campaign is experiencing the political equivalent of a stock market crash. By that I mean: there’s some bad news that triggers the crash, and there’s also an element of panic and herd behavior, and it becomes hard to tell exactly which is which. At some point, the market usually finds its footing, as the stock has some fundamental value higher than zero. But it can be a long way down before it does…

In the end, your assessment of Trump’s chances comes down to the same consideration as with a falling stock: How sound are the fundamentals? Is Trump the equivalent of a beleaguered blue-chip that still has lots of hard assets? In Trump’s case, the most valuable asset is probably possession of the Republican Party ballot line, which theoretically ought to be worth something given the circumstances of the race. Or was the whole business a sort of confidence trick, which was bound to implode once people began to lose faith in it?

—Nate Silver
The Second Debate Probably Didn’t Help Trump, And He Needed Help

Elizabeth Channels Bill Pullman in Independence Day

Independence DayIn less than an hour the polls will open. Americans nationwide will join together with Americans around the world. And you will be launching the largest voting effort in the history of Americankind. We can’t be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interest. Perhaps it is fate that today is the day to elect Hillary Clinton. And that once again you will be fighting the forces of fascism. Fighting tyranny, oppression, and persecution. Fighting annihilation. We are fighting for our right to live. As gay, straight, black, Asian, white, woman, transgender, immigrant or native born. For today is the day that America declared in nearly one voice “We will not go quietly into the night. We will not vanish without a fight. We are going to live on. We are going to survive. And we are going to defeat the Orange Menace!

—Elizabeth Rogers
Parody from Independence Day

Ethics, Nightmares, and Killing a Fly

FlyI had a nightmare last week — perhaps the worst that I have ever had. Like all my dreams, exactly why things were happening was muddled. But I was doing target shooting — at live human beings. There were others there watching me. They might have been coercing me, but regardless, they were fine with what I was doing. I shot a man in the right thigh and a woman in the abdomen. It was not the shooting that made the dream so horrible. It was watching the pain the two people suffered.

Everyone around me was completely disconnected from the outcome of what I had just done. Finally, I said, “Are you going to help these people?!” And they all acted as though they had been woken from a dream and started seeing to my victims. I then woke, glad to know that this bit of human cruelty was just in my mind. It was only a couple of days later that the genesis of the dream became clear to me. It all had to do with a moth that I had killed.

Killing a Fly

Usually, it isn’t moths. The truth is that I commonly kill flies. I don’t go after them, but if they get caught in my room, they drive me a little crazy. I find it almost impossible to work when a fly is buzzing around me. So I kill the fly. I’m not proud of this. I’m placing my very temporary productivity above the life of another creature. And it’s a creature that I find fascinating. In my hunting of them, I marvel at the beauty of their flight paths.

But here’s the thing: the majority of the time, I cannot kill the fly on a first blow. I have blinds, and it is generally the case that the fly will only land on the window and I will have to swat through the blind. I will then, as quickly as possible, find the fly and finish the job. As anyone who has read me for any length of time knows: I do not find death so horrible. But pain is. So I move furniture or anything else to limit the fly’s pain. (And yes: it’s life.)

Wounding a Moth

But when I was down at my sister’s a few weeks ago, I badly wounded a moth. But it crawled away below a heavy piece of furniture. I couldn’t finish the job. Had it been my house, things would have been different. But my sister dragged me away. She was, I suppose like normal people, indifferent to the plight of this poor moth. But it has haunted me.

I’ll admit: I likely empathize too much with these creatures. But I know that my life really is no more important than theirs. My concern about pain may be laudable (or laughable). But I wish I were better. I wish I were a Jain monk, not willing to knowingly hurt a fly. But I’m too selfish. And moths and flies are hardly the limit to my selfishness. I love chickens but have no problem eating them.

It’s hard to live an ethical life. I deserved that nightmare.

Live Blog: Second Presidential Debate 2016

Second Presidential Debate 2016Welcome to the second presidential debate! Unlike many, I don’t expect this debate to be all that good. But part of it is just that I am a partisan. I want Clinton to do well. But even more than that, I constantly worry that if Trump does okay, the media will turn it into “great” and “a game changer.” I take nothing for granted in this election. Trump could still be our next president.

I do have an irrational fear, though. It goes like this: the Republican Party forces Trump out, runs Paul Ryan, and given there has been little attention paid to him recently, he wins. This will not happen, however. First, it would be hard for the Republican Party to organize. If they did, there are still a number of states where the electoral votes would have to go to Trump regardless. So it would be a virtual impossibility that the Trump substitute would win. It would all end in the courts. But if you want to be frightened, you can meditate on the Republicans’ willingness to steal an election via the courts.

How the Second Presidential Debate Will Go

My guess is that Trump is going to try to take the high road in this debate. He’s done his apology. And now he’s going to move on. The whole thing was 11 years ago. He was but a child — barely 59 years old! Regardless, it is the past and he is focused on the future. And a few dozen other platitudes that I could send your way. And to be honest, I think that that Clinton would be wise to let him. The damage has been done. Let’s move on to the next Trump outrage. That’s not to say she should let it go completely. But I don’t think it is a good idea to overplay this.

And it isn’t like Clinton has nothing to fear. Wikileaks just posted a bunch of Clinton email messages that provide information about some of the things she said at talks given to big banks on Wall Street. It doesn’t look that damning. But Clinton hasn’t been great in addressing these kind of vague allegations. What I find amazing is that anyone could look at her and Trump together and think, “Well obviously we can trust Trump!”

There are two things that make me confident about the debate. First is that Hillary Clinton is amazingly good, despite her muddled answers on email and speeches. And she has a great team. And I know that they’ve come at this debate from all angles. So if humble Trump shows up, Clinton will know what to do. If combative Trump shows up, ditto. And so on.

Second, Trump really is like a toddler. The debate is 90 minutes long. He has a hard time sitting still that long. And he really doesn’t have more than 5 minutes of material that isn’t about how great he is. So even if he does okay for the first 30 minutes, by 60 minutes, he will be cranky, and by 85 minutes, he will be Alec Baldwin:

And Away We Go!

That’s all I have to say for now. It’s hard living through this election. I think it is very important. And it doesn’t matter whether the eventual president is Trump or some other Republican, it will be a catastrophe. So I take this all quite seriously, which is why I have to drink to get through them. Although I plan not to drink as much as I did last time.

Now on with the second presidential debate!

Odd Words: Brannigan

Zapp BranniganPage 32 of The New York Times Everyday Reader’s Dictionary of Misunderstood, Misused, and Mispronounced Words: Revised Edition didn’t have much to work with. But at least we had “brannigan.”

Beyond Brannigan

There were a couple of words today that reminded me of Donald Trump. One is today’s word itself. But there are other things like bravado and bray. I especially think of “bray” when I watch Trump. Bravado is obvious.

There were a couple of words that I didn’t know. The first was “bretelle.” That is “an ornamental shoulder strap.” No surprise that I wouldn’t know a word that had to do with fashion.

The second word was “brisance.” That is more jargon than word: “the shattering power of high explosive.” Now that I think of it — another Trump word!

But on to the chosen word:

Bran·ni·gan  noun  \bra’-ni-gən\

1. a squabble or brawl; a spree.

Date: late 19th century.

Origin: unknown, but apparently based on the last name.

Example: There might be a huge brannigan at tonight’s debate —Frank Moraes (Because, really, how to research a word like this?)

Republican Establishment Will Always Love Trump

Donald Trump - Hero of Republican EstablishmentYesterday, all hell broke loose in the political world, Trump Recorded Having Extremely Lewd Conversation About Women in 2005. As with every Trump outrage, there was much speculation about maybe this being the time he’s gone too far. Maybe this time the Republican establishment would repudiate him. And then: nothing.

But this one was clearly worse than usual. Trump spoke in some detail about trying to bed a married woman. Given that he admits to failure, it is clearly true. Then he speaks about his celebrity allowing him to get away with groping women. He says, “Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” Whether or not that’s true seems less clear to me. But admitting to sexual assault to impress the boys is still vile. And all it seems to have cost Trump in terms of endorsements is two little known politicians from Utah.

Republican Establishment Is Outraged!

Otherwise, what we got was a lot of outrage from the Republican establishment. Paul Ryan released a statement, “I am sickened by what I heard today. Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.” Mitch McConnell released a similar statement, “These comments are repugnant, and unacceptable in any circumstance.” He wants Trump to “apologize directly to women and girls everywhere.”

Why such faux outrage? I think Brian Beutler summed it up nicely in this tweet:

That is: bragging about sexual assault is bad, but it’s nothing when you consider that Trump would cut taxes on the rich.

But really: the recording is, in an important sense, meaningless. We’ve had well over a year of Donald Trump running for president. We all know what kind of man he is. But more to the point: his supporters know what kind of man he is. And they don’t care. They will never care. There is roughly half the Republican base (basket of deplorables) that will vote for Trump no matter what. Even more concerning is that the Republican establishment is in agreement that tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the poor more than offset anything Trump could ever do. If Trump turned out to be a serial killer, they would still support him.

Central Park Five

Meanwhile, just a day before, we learned, Donald Trump Still Thinks The Central Park Five Are Guilty. These are men who were exonerated by DNA evidence. Yet Trump just somehow knows. And he made a telling (and ironic) comment, “And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same.” I’ve always found this kind of statement odd: there is a victim so we must punish someone regardless of their guilt! But that’s what “law and order” is all about: it’s an authoritarian approach to running a country — control through terrorism directed at the weakest members of society.

What I think is most interesting about this recording’s release is how it changes the dynamics of Sunday night’s debate (that I will be live blogging). Until the recording came out, Trump indicated that he was going to be calm and focused on policy. But last night, he released the following video statement that seems to indicate there is a new plan:

Basically: I’m sorry; but Bill Clinton is worse; and Hillary protected him!

What We Have Learned

So what have we learned? Donald Trump is a vile man? Nope: already knew that. The Republican establishment would feed all their mothers to hyenas in exchange for a reduction in the top marginal tax rate? Nope: already knew that too. That there is no shame on the right? Sorry. The whole thing is just more of the same. When exactly the three-fours of the country who aren’t deplorables will learn this, I cannot say.

Stuff for a Drama in All This, and Not a Bad Drama Either

Luigi PirandelloHe [the boy] disappears soon, you know. And the baby too. She is the first to vanish from the scene. The drama consists finally in this: when that mother re-enters my house, her family born outside of it, and shall we say superimposed on the original, ends with the death of the little girl, the tragedy of the boy, and the flight of the elder daughter. It cannot go on, because it is foreign to its surroundings. So after much torment, we three remain: I, the mother, that son. Then, owing to the disappearance of that extraneous family, we too find ourselves strange to one another. We find we are living in an atmosphere of mortal desolation which is the revenge, as he [indicating the son] scornfully said of the Demon of Experiment, that unfortunately hides in me. Thus, sir, you see when faith is lacking, it becomes impossible to create certain states of happiness, for we lack the necessary humility. Vaingloriously, we try to substitute ourselves for this faith, creating thus for the rest of the world a reality which we believe after their fashion, while, actually, it doesn’t exist. For each one of us has his own reality to be respected before God, even when it is harmful to one’s very self.

—Father in Six Characters in Search of an Author
by Luigi Pirandello (Translated by Edward Storer)