This week I have been thinking about cheating in baseball. If you have not been keeping up, the Astros were caught. When I first heard about their scheme, I was appalled, as many were and still are. But with a little research, I believe that appalled is an overreaction. Perhaps disappointed and saddened is a more appropriate reaction. There may be no crying in baseball, but there has always been cheating including and often especially sign stealing, which is what has created this latest uproar. It makes me wonder if some of these ballplayers crying foul over the Astros' shenanigans are being disingenuous.

This consternation and uncertainty about how to first define and then react to cheating, can also be applied to our politicians and to our life today in these United States of America. There are many parallels. Knowing that money is power: to be white is to have home field advantage; to have money is to steal signs from second base; and to be wealthy is to conspire with multiple operatives to steal signs from strategic vantage points outside the field of play. Today there are many politicians crying foul over rival's shenanigans. And of course it makes me wonder if many, probably most, and possibly all politicians are being disingenuous.

I believe most of us who are shocked and express outrage when we hear of purposeful violation of rules, do so because we have not been paying attention. And others who act distressed, (most especially those who should so obviously know better how things really work), are disingenuous. With some reasoned consideration, to be disappointed and saddened is a more appropriate reaction, but outrage also serves a purpose. This though, can also become a cycle. From outrage to disappointment to helplessness to the next outrage. And as each cycle passes, a few more drop out, going straight to feelings of helplessness, a shrug of the shoulders, and other more pleasant, less disconcerting distractions. I believe it is important to stay saddened and disheartened. To be distracted is to become okay with the status quo. But if I maintain a realistic constant hum of sadness and disappointment beneath bouts of outrage and the occasional distraction, perhaps I will pay closer attention and at the least vote out those who are most disingenuous, and maybe vote in a handful who are somewhat less so. Baby steps.

One takeaway from this is the reminder that to be wealthy is not only about money or talent or some other critical resource. To be wealthy is also a state of mind. To be wealthy is to feel entitled; to believe I am more deserving and I am better than the rest. And because I AM – taking advantage of the system, (though some may see it as cheating), is simply expediting the inevitable.

Having money, security, and/or some degree of comfort, is also a state of mind. The celebration we see in the dugout after a two-run homer that retakes a lead, illustrates this nicely when in the bottom half of the inning the home team hits their own two-run homer.

And probably the most important reminder for all of us is that home field advantage is also a state of mind. Yes, one can list many tangible factors that may aid in defining the home field, but it is not the tangibles that create an advantage. One's home field creates a state of mind that calms nerves and instills confidence, and it is this state of mind that creates the advantage. And in many instances, (perhaps most), this is a good thing, but it does not excuse overconfidence. Overconfidence enlarges ego and ego demands justifications. And it is not a very big stretch from justifying a greater degree of prestige (thereby influence and control) because it is OUR home field and we were here first, to justifying rules violations that simply expedite future inevitabilities. There are not very many dots to connect between believing in my esteemed prominence and cheating to ensure the integrity of my delusion.

Cheating to ensure the integrity of my delusion. Wow! Is this the ultimate, central and essential reason why we cheat? If so, (since we are all delusional to some degree), how does one not cheat? I suppose we could differentiate degree by the size of one's delusion? And maybe that's what we should measure: delusions. Seeing it in this regard, one with large delusions and access to wealth, will be more inclined to cheat. And if a delusion is a false belief or opinion, then skeptics, scientists and experts will tend to cheat less.

If I am going to cheat to ensure the integrity of my delusion, then I will work very hard doubting, questioning and seeking current scientific and expert consensus. I will not, ever, trust the beliefs or opinions of a politician. I believe the best politician is one who may be a tad less disingenuous with a somewhat smaller field of delusions.

I am sad. I am disappointed. I am disheartened.