This week's main segment focuses on the tragic shooting in Arizona that left 6 dead and over a dozen injured, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Is it dangerous (and irresponsible) to engage in the rhetoric of violence when referring to those you disagree with politically? Are terms like, "2nd Amendment remedies", "armed and dangerous", "revolution", "reload" and "take up arms" intended to incite / promote fear and distrust in Government to a particular demographic for political gains?

Although the events in Arizona do not appear to be politically motivated, should the sheer coincidence of who the intended victim was and the fact the she was in Sarah Palin's political crosshairs be a wake-up call to tone down the rhetoric before it's too late? 

This segment centers wholly around the events and controversies of the past week, including a discussion of a political environment in which it could be perceived that violence against a member of Congress is condoned, whether it is intended to be 'tongue in cheek' or not. What responsibility should politicians and public figures bear for their own words and the potential unintended consequences? 

www.stimulatedboredom.com