Mr. Want-to-be, Emmanuel Macron, High Priest of France needs to get back on a plane and head for Sudan.  Maybe a third time will be the charm for his masterful diplomacy, bringing the full weight of France's power to bear in his effort to win a Nobel Prize for Peace.

Oh, I forgot.  Mr. Wonderful said recently that he did not think Europe should involve themselves with crisis that is not theirs.  I think they call that kind of policy "laissez-faire" in France--live and let live without interference.  I call it simply "fairly lazy" or better yet, "fairly stupid".  

If your house was burning down, would you want Mr. M as a neighbor?  I wouldn't.  The only thing Macron would do is get out the hose and point it towards the roof of his own house. 

Oh, but if Macron's house was burning down, who would be the first person knocking on the door asking for help?  You betcha!

------

I saw a picture a couple of days ago which showed Macron gazing forward, looking in awe, with the President of the People's Republic of China behind him on his right side.  It almost looked like Xi was whispering something to Macron, causing Mr. France's amazement.  The article in which the picture was displayed did not say what Macron was looking at, leaving me only to guess.

Probably a fly-over of a bunch of Chinese jet fliers.  Or maybe, a big picture of Macron on the side of a building in Beijing.  Or maybe, a thousand lap-dogs sitting on the laps of a thousand Chinese dog trainers.  Who knows?

All i can say is this.  Over the last few months, Macron seems to have gained stature in the authoritarian world.  Putin would not let Macron get close to him, making him sit a table length away.  Jinping got right up to Macron's ear.  

-------

Now i know i should not be so harsh--if that is what you want to call it.  But really?  Macron, the "peace-maker"?  I don't think so.  Macron, the "pacifier pacifying" works a lot better for me.

------

ps.  When is America the Great going to do something about gun control?  Talking about a laissez-faire attitude on the Second Amendment.  Our forefathers would be in shame, knowing their words were being misinterpreted for the benefit of the National Rifle Association.  In the 1700's American's wanted to have guns to protect their households from Indians.  Today, it seems that Americans want to have guns to protect their households from someone of a different color who knocks on their door.