Every system is flawed.
Look long enough at a diet plan and fuzzy scientific claims emerge. Spend a few days in the local high school, and weaknesses in the curriculum can’t hide. Attend a worship service with a local faith community and flaws are inevitable: coldness, perhaps, or even just a bad sound system.
It seems to me that we have three options when navigating flawed systems that we should care about. We can walk away from the flaws in search of a version with fewer (of just different) flaws. Change schools. Change churches. Change streaming music services.
We could also dig into the flawed system to fix it. Join the PTA. Volunteer. Send letters and emails.
But there’s a third option beyond ditching it and working to fix it. We can always embrace the flaws. We can always choose to leave the flaws alone and commit to the diet plan or the bed time routine anyway, without straining to fix what’s wrong.
Which is better, then? Adopting a system in order to change what’s wrong with it, or with eyes wide open about its shortcomings and committed all the same?
YoRocko! 
If I didn’t embrace my flaws I’d have a hard time looking at myself in the mirror every morning! lol
/judy
Eyes open and committed
That should depend on what the flaws are, how they affect us, and how serious they are. There are apples and oranges here. Is it a system that allows crime and thus is a danger or its it just a bad sound system.
Mom
>