Episode 191: In an era where arguments often erupt into shouting matches or retreat into silence, hosts Richard Kyte and Scott Rada explore how we can disagree better — and why it matters more than ever.

Drawing on insights from philosophy, journalism, childhood play and even sports fandom, the conversation unfolds into a thoughtful examination of how disagreement has shifted in our culture. The hosts argue that we’ve increasingly lost sight of what disagreement is meant to do: open our minds, sharpen our thinking and strengthen our democratic institutions. Instead, disagreement has become a contest to be won, often reduced to emotionally charged sound bites or dismissed entirely.

Kyte recounts a scene of children negotiating the rules of a flag football game, using it as a metaphor for the character-building that underpins both democracy and self-governance. He connects these playground moments to the deterioration of civic norms, highlighting our increasing acceptance of executive overreach and our mistrust of those enforcing rules, ranging from referees to elected officials.

The hosts also reflect on their experiences navigating disagreements at work, in relationships and even online. They differentiate between healthy disagreement and toxic confrontation, emphasizing the importance of humility, curiosity, and mutual respect.

They caution, too, that constructive disagreement isn’t always appropriate. Silence or solidarity may be more ethical than critique in moments of grief, stress or unity. But avoiding all disagreement, they warn, risks eroding creativity, growth, and understanding — not just in politics or the workplace, but in our everyday lives.

Ultimately, this episode is a call to reclaim disagreement as a civic skill. It’s not just about speaking up — it’s about listening well, staying engaged and valuing the process of understanding even when consensus is elusive.

Episode 190: Hosts Richard Kyte and Scott Rada Rick Kyte delved into the complex and often uncomfortable topic of what constitutes a "good death" in modern society.

They discuss the challenges of medical technology's ability to prolong life, even when the quality of life has significantly diminished. Kyte emphasized that death is inherently painful, both physically and emotionally, and argued that the focus should be on avoiding unnecessarily prolonged suffering.

The hosts explore various aspects of end-of-life care, highlighting the importance of advanced directives and open family conversations. Kyte strongly advocated for individuals to prepare comprehensive end-of-life documents, including appointing a durable power of attorney and clearly communicating personal wishes to family members.

A significant portion of the conversation addressed the controversial topic of medical aid in dying. While 10 states currently have laws allowing terminally ill patients to choose medical assistance in ending their lives, Kyte expressed reservations. He believes the medical profession's primary role should be to save lives and relieve suffering, not to end them actively.

The hosts also discussed the modern practice of "outsourcing" death care, contrasting current funeral practices with historical approaches where families were more directly involved in preparing and mourning their deceased loved ones. They argued that this distancing has contributed to society's discomfort with discussing death.

About the hosts

Scott Rada is a digital strategist with Lee Enterprises, and Richard Kyte is the director of the D.B. Reinhart Institute for Ethics in Leadership at Viterbo University in La Crosse, Wisconsin. He is also the author of "Finding Your Third Place: Building Happier Communities (and Making Great Friends Along the Way)."

Episode 189: Hosts Scott Rada and Richard Kyte delve into the ethical tension between justice and revenge, revealing how these seemingly similar concepts diverge in motives, processes and outcomes.

To illustrate the contrast, Kyte draws on the symbol of Lady Justice: blindfolded, holding scales and a sword — a figure meant to represent impartiality and measured response. Revenge, by contrast, is fueled by emotion and often lacks balance or mercy.

The conversation spans everything from classic Westerns to contemporary political discourse. Kyte notes that revenge has long been a powerful storytelling device, particularly in films where personal retribution collides with the rise of law and order. But the desire to get even, he warns, can also corrode trust in real-world institutions.

That concern is especially visible in modern politics. Kyte points to President Donald Trump, who has made retribution a recurring theme — both on the campaign trail and in office. Using political power to settle personal scores, Kyte argues, undermines democratic norms and risks turning governance into a vendetta.

Later, the episode turns toward everyday life. From workplace slights to social media feuds, revenge often masquerades as justice. But as one district attorney told Rada, victims of identical crimes may respond in vastly different ways — some seeking harsh punishment, others showing surprising compassion.

Kyte cautions that vengeance rarely delivers what it promises. According to philosopher Simone Weil, Kyte said that imagined evil can seem thrilling, but real evil is often dull, painful, and empty. Instead of ruminating about harm, he urges listeners to cultivate habits of empathy, forgiveness, and moral clarity.