Russia Sanctions Humiliate Hillary

I've been trying to find a logical reason for the Congressional vote for the extreme action of imposing sanctions on Russia.

Sanction supporters talk about what they call "fake news",but the term is just another word for propaganda which governments produce all  the time.  We didn't impose sanctions on the British government for its "fake news" stories about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

Russian spying on candidates cannot justify sanctions because spying on political figures is  a common  government activity.  Besides the CIA had already infiltrated the Russian hackers who were the alleged spies.

The only significant difference in the situation is that the person Congress is concerned about is a woman, Hillary Clinton.   I believe Congress  is upset because  members think the big old Russian bear was mean to poor little defenseless Goldilocks.

Does anyone believe Congress would have taken a similar action if Donald Trump had been the alleged victim?  Or, for that matter the previous losing Democratic candidate John Kerry?

Congress didn't impose sanctions when Vietnam meddled in the 2004 election by producing  story claiming that potential Democratic presidential aspirant Sen Bob Kerrey had participated in a war crime in Vietnam 50 years earlier.

Charlie Gard's Parents Demonstrate British Fortitude

Americans  support Charlie Gard partly because his parents demonstrate the fortitude in the face of adversity that  Americans have long admired in the British.  Unfortunately for Charlie his doctors don't have that fortitude.   The doctors prefer a white flag of surrender to a "stiff upper lip". 

If Charlie's parents had been in London during WWII they would have come out of the shelters between bombing raids and taken  care of business.  I don't know about his doctors.

The decision by Charlie's parents to ask for American help repeats   another British behavior.  During the last century when "Mother England" needed help she turned to her powerful "child" the United States.

Old Medicine vs. New Medicine

Poor baby Charlie Gard and his parents are caught in the old battle between compassionless medical traditionalists who are satisfied with existing medical knowledge and the experimentalists who are trying to advance medical knowledge  to reduce the number of disorders that cannot be successfully treated.   Traditionalists who don't know how to treat disorders tend to deny the possibility that patients like Charlie whom they don't know how to treat can be treated by anyone.   They are like selfish little children who don't want to let other children play with toys they aren't playing with at the time.  Traditionalists would rather have a patient die than allow someone else to treat and cure "their" patient. 

Traditionalists often call themselves "experts", but they are incapable of being experts because experts must be familiar with the latest knowledge as well as the traditional knowledge.   Development of new treatments can intimidate traditionalists because they don't know if they can learn the new knowledge.

Traditionalists don't understand that parents can accept a child's death more easily if they know they have tried every possible treatment.  Parents can accept death more easily if they know doctors have gained knowledge from their child's death that might help other children in the future.  

Do British Understand Importance of Medical Research?

The efforts of British medical personnel to prevent Charlie Gard from  receiving experimental treatment implies they don't understand how important participating in medical research is.  All medical treatments begin as experiments.   Someone had to be the first to be treated for rabies.   Someone had to be the first to receive a heart transplant.   Sixty years ago my grandfather had experimental treatment for skin cancer on his face that didn't work as expected because, according to my dad, The doctor applied the radiation for too long.  Decades later doctors used the knowledge they gained from treating my grandfather and others to successfully treat my father and his brother as well as myself  for facial skin cancers.

Sometimes treatment developed for one malady can be used to treat another.  American entertainer Jerry Lewis helped raise millions to develop treatments for muscular dystrophy.  Doctor used one of those treatments to save Lewis from a potentially fatal heart problem.

We cannot tell in advance if Charlie Gard will benefit from experimental treatment.   If he does not his parents will know that their son's life served a purpose because  knowledge gained from treating  their son will eventually benefit the lives of other children just like knowledge from efforts to treat my grandfather's skin cancer benefited his sons and grandson.