The politicization of a tragedy is appropriate and necessary immediately after a tragedy.

Being a liberal who is quite weary of loose gun control legislation, I did not hesitate a moment to speak out publicly on the need for gun control reform immediately after the Connecticut shooting. I was confronted on numerous occasions that such politicization was "inappropriate" and "disrespectful." The charge was made that we must wait a period of time (unspecified by most and variable amongst distinct individuals) before talking about the political impacts and ramifications of this tragedy. The widespread nature of this debate over appropriate timing was seen in Slate's article from December 14th: (http://www.slate.com...)What this debate is:While I am a liberal, this debate is in defense of anyone who sees politicization as a necessary and proper thing, regardless of time past. I am arguing for even a conservative's proper right and necessity of speaking about the implications of such a tragedy. Simply put, I argue that this seemingly undefined "waiting period" to which vocal individuals are said to have inappropriately broken serves no purpose, and is in many cases detrimental to society as a whole as well as a true injustice to the victims and their families. Appropriate "Waiting Periods" are Political in and of ThemselvesI argue here that those who make the charge of indecency against vocal individuals are themselves politicizing the very same tragedy, but in different ways. Dictionary.com provides "conservative" with the following definition: "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc." Liberal, on the other hand, is defined as "favorable to progress or reform." I propose here that this charge of indecency for failure to "wait" an unspecified amount of time is just as much a politicization, but a conservative one. This is not to say that anyone who espouses either opinion in this debate is categorically "conservative" or "liberal," but the definitions provide a rough look into the fact that these charges are just as much a political move.This declaration of insult and offense on behalf of the victims and their families is just as much political. If the charge of indecency is to be permitted (which I don't grant that it should necessarily be), that charge must come initially and directly from those who have reason to be offended or disrespected (the families of the victims). Since the casualties are incapable of expressing, much less feeling, offense, the only people that should be allowed to make such a charge are those who have reason to be insulted or offended. Those who take it upon themselves to feel offense or disrespect on behalf of the families that were effected are, as noted previously, politicizing to the exact same degree as the liberal response. If this response were to be taken on in the legislature, they would be exercising a gross form of paternalism (if any form of paternalism can be labeled "not gross") in which disrespect is assumed by the families that have thus far not expressed said disrespect to any significant degree. I would further argue that if insult is to be assumed (which it initially should not be, but regrettably already has) for the victims, it would be much less offensive to hear the liberal response of gun control reform that the typical conservative response (which, as I noted, they are perfectly entitled to make) of saying that the death of their children is simply a "necessary evil" in protecting the liberties of the murderer of their kin. On Disrespect for the DeadIf it is to be argued that politicization in and of itself is disrespectful to the dead (put in other words by claiming the use of "victims" for the advancement of a particular platform), I would have to point out that the dead are neither capable of feeling nor expressing disrespect. If this position (which admittedly is not dependent on any "time table" of appropriateness) were to be universally accepted, then one must also speak out against any discussion of the evils of Nazism and it's consequences. This argument is even worse than one which arbitrarily grants appropriateness to politicization after an unspecified amount of time, for it fails to take into consideration that those 6 million individuals who died in the Holocaust are no more or less dead than the individuals who died in Connecticut. Further, those individuals who died in Connecticut are no more or less dead than after a week or a few hours after the tragedy. Disrespect must only be made from and for the individuals who remain alive."Waiting Period" for the Sake of GriefThose who claim that a "waiting period" is appropriate to allow time for the family and the nation to grieve seem to be under the impression that critical, prescient, and political thought cannot be engaged in while grieving and mourning the loss of these children. There is absolutely no reason that we as a species, capable of incredible amounts of multi-tasking and synthesis, cannot engage in mournful reflection while simultaneously engaging in the political implications of such a tragedy. It is also important to note the very real possibility of yet another tragedy occurring within this unspecified amount of time set aside solely for grief, at which point we will hear cries for "waiting periods" yet again, so discussion of the political impact is pushed further and further back, allowing for more and more apathy and inaction. On the Distinction Between the Two SidesI think I have made it clear that this debate does not depend solely on liberal vs. conservative responses to such tragedies. I am simply arguing that liberal and conservative politicizations of such tragedies are entirely proper, appropriate, and even necessary. It is important to note, however, that the various philosophies espoused by conservatives and liberals paint a good portrait of why this question of "waiting periods" has become so volatile in the past weeks. I think it can be reasonable assumed that, in general, liberals will espouse an attitude open to gun reform and heavier restrictions, while conservatives will fight back by pointing out that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," or that if an adult in the school had a gun, the murderer could have been stopped. As much as I disagree with such interpretations of the incident, that is not the debate at hand. I think it is reasonable, then, to assume that liberals, by the very definition of their ideology as one supportive of change and reform, will not grant the arbitrary "appropriateness regression" after such a tragedy. Conservatives, on the other hand, in tandem with their ideology of the status quo, will be much more likely to push for a "waiting period," which in and of itself represses the political implications that were made apparent just hours after the tragedy, until a future moment in time. The liberal cross-over (liberals supportive of gun reform but insistent on this "waiting period") I argue is making a political statement just as much as any other, but a conservative one. I think it's reasonable to assume that the divide in this debate will be, for the most part, along liberal and conservative lines (by the very nature of their respective ideologies). Those that are admittedly liberal (in support of change and reform) that insist on such a waiting period, are likely in the category of people who are inspired by "hope and change," but fail to recognize that this is something that need be worked for, not something that we can wait around for and expect to be handed on a silver platter. This is clearly seen in Jay Kearney's insistence that "today is not the day to talk gun control." In short, I think it appropriate and necessary for liberals and conservatives alike to discuss, recognize, and spread the political implications of such a tragedy as soon as they become apparent, despite any differences in interpretation or application.