Lucien Chevalier

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

"There is no trade war with the United States. It's pure nonsense. The U.S. administration has simply concluded that globalization is a failed policy and is now implementing protectionist trade measures against nearly every country in the world. The term “war” merely serves a convenient political purpose for Ottawa."

[Lucien Chevalier @Lucien_Che]

@fanrob1982 @loupcruel 16

[Renard Jean-Michel @Renardpaty]

Perdre une heure en cinq minutes

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

Had a meeting yesterday with a European economist who's also a good friend.

Me: "In Canada, we're bailing out wealthy condo developers while crowdfunding renovations for our Prime Minister's official residence."

Her: "I thought Europeans were the socialists."

[Lucien Chevalier @Lucien_Che]

Sorti du sol comme une mauvaise herbe rock, ce motard en paille ressemble tellement à Billy Gibbons de ZZ Top qu’on s’attend presque à l’entendre lancer un solo.

[Jacinthe-Eve Arel 🇨🇦🇺🇸🇫🇷 @JacintheEveArel]

Quand les États parlent d’une « dynamique mondiale », il faut écouter attentivement ce qu’ils sont vraiment en train de construire.

Protéger les enfants est un objectif légitime.

Mais pour interdire réellement les réseaux sociaux aux moins de 15 ou 16 ans, il faut vérifier l’âge. Et pour vérifier l’âge, on crée une infrastructure d’identification de l’espace public numérique.

Ce n’est pas un détail technique.

C’est un pont entre l’identité civile et l’expression politique en ligne.

Une fois ce pont construit, il devient possible de relier une personne réelle à ses opinions, ses critiques du pouvoir, ses abonnements, ses partages, ses réseaux d’influence, ses causes, ses médias, ses prises de position dans les débats sensibles et sa capacité de mobilisation.

Or, la puissance de X, au-delà de ses excès, tient précisément à la libre circulation de l’information.

C’est l’un des rares espaces où les récits officiels, médiatiques, citoyens, dissidents, étrangers, spécialisés et contradictoires peuvent se rencontrer sans passer entièrement par les filtres traditionnels.

On peut y voir une information émerger, être contestée, documentée, corrigée, amplifiée ou démolie en temps réel.

C’est une forme de collectivisation de l’information.

Et c’est précisément ce qui rend cette infrastructure si sensible politiquement.

Ce n’est plus seulement savoir ce qui se dit.

C’est pouvoir savoir qui pense quoi, avec qui, contre qui, sur quels sujets, à quel moment et avec quelle influence et quelle portée.

Le danger n’est donc pas seulement la censure.

Le danger, c’est la cartographie préalable de ceux qu’il pourrait devenir utile de censurer.

Aujourd’hui, on dira que c’est pour protéger les enfants.

Demain, cette architecture pourra servir à surveiller, classer, ralentir, marginaliser ou neutraliser la dissidence.

Une démocratie peut survivre à la critique.

Elle devrait surtout craindre le jour où elle se donne les moyens techniques d’identifier, de classer et d’administrer ceux qui la formulent.

Car le jour où parler librement exigera d’être identifié, validé et autorisé, nous n’aurons pas protégé les enfants : nous aurons transformé la libre circulation de l’information en privilège administré.

[DogeDesigner @cb_doge]

When Elon Musk was asked to rate how important money is to him from 0 to 10, he said:

“Maybe a 2.”

“The reason I guess I have what’s called wealth or really just shares in the companies, is that I’ve created these companies. Tesla has about 140,000 direct employees worldwide, and probably five times that number in the broader ecosystem, maybe almost a million jobs when you look at the whole supply chain that Tesla has created. And then SpaceX has about 15,000 people, and perhaps around 50,000 people when you include the full supply chain.

So, with the help of many talented people, I built these companies. The so-called wealth statistics simply add up what my ownership stake in those companies is worth. But I don’t actually have that in cash. I have it in stock. It’s really just that the companies have succeeded.”

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

"A food strategy requires a clear vision, measurable objectives, and a long-term commitment. What Ottawa has unveiled is better described as a collection of investments.

The numbers tell part of the story. Canada’s new plan amounts to roughly $320 million annually, or about $7.80 per Canadian per year. For comparison, even excluding SNAP and other nutrition programs, the U.S. Farm Bill spends between US$75 and US$120 per person annually on agriculture, crop insurance, conservation, rural development, and competitiveness. Canada is operating on an entirely different scale."

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

Just returned from the U.S. Not a word about Trump. Not a word about CUSMA. Not a word about Canada.

They simply don't care.

Yet many Canadians seem convinced that a Republican loss in the midterms would be a game changer.

Maybe.

But I wouldn't count on it. Even if Democrats reclaim Congress, there's no guarantee U.S. trade policy toward Canada would change in any meaningful way. The Obama and Biden years were difficult for our farmers and agri-food sector. More predictable, but difficult.

America is focused on America.

[SK @Djoko_UTD]

When Djokovic cooked the Reporter and went on to beat sinner 2 days later...

“You were chasing Roger & Rafa for titles… and now you’re chasing Jannik & Carlos…”

Novak: "There’s about a 15 year period in between where I won 24 slams”

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

Steven Guilbeault is leaving federal politics, and not a moment too soon.

He may go down as one of the ministers who most aggressively weaponized science, funding questionable research groups like the Canadian Climate Institute and other pet projects to reinforce a single “climate crisis” narrative.

Anyone claiming Guilbeault truly believed in science is fooling themselves. He treated science like a buffet — picking only what supported his agenda. That’s not science.

He even misquoted me in the House of Commons, attributing claims to me that I have never said or published. That alone tells you everything you need to know about how evidence and dissent were handled under his watch.

Good riddance.