McGuirk on the Late Late Show

Stargal

Was anybody else seriously disturbed to see John McGuirk presented as an 'economist' on the Late Late Show on Friday on the discussion on whether Ireland should consider nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels?

Hee hee, I haven't seen him yet to tease him about the make-up.

Agent Smith

stargal wrote:

Was anybody else seriously disturbed to see John McGuirk presented as an 'economist' on the Late Late Show on Friday on the discussion on whether Ireland should consider nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels?

not disturbed, tbh

Contesticle

really?
ahhahaha
why??
if they needed some one with a nice round face stating that "nuclear is good"(which i suppose he did) why choose a student?
the bad thing is that a person like McGuirk will have great chances of becoming someone important...
what a world..
bleah:eek:

europerson

I only saw the very end of the discussion, but I programmed my VCR to record the late-night repeat tomorrow, so I'll comment further, once I've seen that.

Beastieboy

stargal wrote:

Was anybody else seriously disturbed to see John McGuirk presented as an 'economist' on the Late Late Show on Friday on the discussion on whether Ireland should consider nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels?

At least one other person was seriously disturbed by it (or otherwise), i got a text on friday night that read....."that fat f**k that ran in the su pres election was on the late late, he's an awful w@nker".....i don't personally know him except to see.... i suppose its a bit funny really after all that stuff that came up about him during the election that he ended up on the late late as some figure of authority

Comhra....

I was forced to watch the whole bloody thing because the person cooking dinner thought it was great. But it was nice to see Cormac in the audience looking all Mr.Suity-like

mcguirkj

Beastieboy wrote:

"that fat f**k that ran in the su pres election was on the late late, he's an awful w@nker".....i

C'mon, I'm not that bad

Though in the spirit of evil, I'm going to take this opportunity to rejoice in the lefties being thwarted again.

DrIndy

Lefties can support nuclear power, I do.

Don't confuse us with Hippies.

Kwekubo

I was watching the Late Late but didn't recognise the name! Will watch again.

D

I too, think that for the foreseeable future nuclear, is the only viable energy source, obviously i expect this to change, but for the moment, it has to be done. When done correctly it is very safe and clean.

ApeXaviour

D wrote:

I too, think that for the foreseeable future nuclear, is the only viable energy source, obviously i expect this to change, but for the moment, it has to be done. When done correctly it is very safe and clean.

From a (lefty) physicist's point of view (though I don't claim to speak for all of them), it is the most environmentally friendly practical source of energy currently available, when dealt with correctly. Strongly regulated nuclear fission plants combined with a healthy percentage of wind/solar/hydro sources is the ideal way to tide us over until nuclear fusion becomes realisable (30-70 years depending on research input and luck). Sustainable fusion should be desired by all as it will solve the world's energy needs almost indefinitely. Although it will necessitate tritium production (used in H-bombs). The plant itself or tokamak will of course produce some radioactive bi-products. The reason fusion however is desirable is because these waste products tend not to be very biologically active and have half lives of tens of years (as opposed to fission waste with thousands of years half lives).

I ramble
Anyway, is the late late show repeated at all during the week? (I don't mind if it's 2am in the morning, usually up at that stage anyway). I'd like to see what john had to say on this.

europerson

ApeXaviour wrote:

Anyway, is the late late show repeated at all during the week? (I don't mind if it's 2am in the morning, usually up at that stage anyway). I'd like to see what john had to say on this.

It's on at 0200 tomorrow morning, i.e., in three and a half hours' time, on RTÉ1.

Barry Aldwell

stargal wrote:

Was anybody else seriously disturbed to see John McGuirk presented as an 'economist' on the Late Late Show on Friday

I was seriously disturbed to see John McGuirk engaging in conversation with that appeared to be a plank, but then I remembered it was the Late Late

Thirdfox

Apex: isn't tritium readily available from seawater? Although I think nuclear fusion is a great way to go power-wise that power can easily be channelled into more destructive uses. Someone with a nuclear fusion bomb can certainly hold the world to ransom.

How's solar energy developing? What is the current efficiency levels for them?

On the actual point - didn't see the programme, can't comment

ApeXaviour

Thirdfox wrote:

Apex: isn't tritium readily available from seawater?

That's deuterium, tritium does not naturally exist and so has to be manufactured. Deuterium is not that abundant either, it'd take 3700kg of water to get one kilo of heavy-water (water with one hydrogen atom replaced by a deuterium atom).

Someone with a nuclear fusion bomb can certainly hold the world to ransom.

Nuclear fusion bombs aka Thermonuclear bombs (or H-bombs) have existed and been tested afaik since the 50's. They tend to be about 10-15 times the power of an A-bomb (hiroshima). A nuclear fusion plant wouldn't necessarily make it in any way easier for people to make a bomb the way fission does. Firstly in order to get enough power to set the fusion reaction in a bomb going you actually need a mini-A-bomb in there with it to "ignite" it. There is no other means to do this in a bomb. So you'd need plutonium or enriched uranium. If all our power is coming from fusion plants though then these will eventually be very hard to come by.

Contesticle

we are going a bit off topic
the question is not wheter atomic energy is bad or good, but why a person like McGuirk, which i personally regard as disgusting and evil, which is just a student has partecipated to a tv show!
he probably has some important connection.
i told you, he is one of these sneaky person that without any ethical restraints will become a politician or something similar
lets even cut this thread coz i bet that he s enjoying this moment of "popularity"
bleah

John

I'm a lefty for nuclear power too. I don't have anything as good to add as Apex did.

John

Contesticle wrote:

we are going a bit off topic
the question is not wheter atomic energy is bad or good, but why a person like McGuirk, which i personally regard as disgusting and evil, which is just a student has partecipated to a tv show!
he probably has some important connection.
i told you, he is one of these sneaky person that without any ethical restraints will become a politician or something similar
lets even cut this thread coz i bet that he s enjoying this moment of "popularity"
bleah

*yawn*

cuckoo

Contesticle wrote:

we are going a bit off topic
the question is not wheter atomic energy is bad or good, but why a person like McGuirk, which i personally regard as disgusting and evil, which is just a student has partecipated to a tv show!
he probably has some important connection.
i told you, he is one of these sneaky person that without any ethical restraints will become a politician or something similar
lets even cut this thread coz i bet that he s enjoying this moment of "popularity"
bleah

Ah, now, c'mon. Why shouldn't a student be allowed have an opinion on the telly? Also, younger ppl are more likely to be around to reap the potential rewards/disaster of nuclear power.

I'd be more concerned that there were no women on that panel. Every time i watch the Late Late it's the same, the St Patricks Day special on the 'state that ireland is currently in' was very revealing about the state our national, licence fee supported national broadcaster is in - for the first two hours there wasn't a single woman included.

Back to the debate - i would have found it more interesting if there had been an anti nuclear scientist to debate with the pro nuclear scientist. It was a weird set up, McGuirk and pro nuclear scientist vs Duncan Stewart (i've said it before in a different thread, but it's worth repeating - i adore him) and Trevor Sargent.

Frankly, i'm surprised there were so many people watching the Late Late. I thought it was my own guilty secret that i settle down on the couch to watch it regularly - i'm glad there's so many other viewers out there.

Nietzschean

Contesticle wrote:

lets even cut this thread coz i bet that he s enjoying this moment of "popularity"
bleah

Uh huh, are you actually a tcd student? you sound more like one in playschool...

Agent Smith

my dad called me and told me there was some guy from trinity on the late late show and asked did i know him...

ApeXaviour

Contesticle wrote:

if they needed some one with a nice round face stating that "nuclear is good"(which i suppose he did) why choose a student?

Why necessarily reject someone because they are a student? Why not choose somebody based on their oratorical skills, interest in topic and knowledge of subject. I assume he qualifies under most of these. I dont doubt there's some connection present. He strikes me as the social climbing type, and sure why not, if you have the ambition.

Contesticle wrote:

the bad thing is that a person like McGuirk will have great chances of becoming someone important...
what a world..

He may. If it's public office you're thinking of however I'd be quite surprised. As long as there are people (like angry_banana say) willing to dig and reveal to all that his opinions and intensions are not actually compatible with the majority's, it won't happen. I see the SU election for him all over again.

Contesticle wrote:

we are going a bit off topic

You must be new here...

Contesticle wrote:

the question is not wheter atomic energy is bad or good, but why a person like McGuirk, which i personally regard as disgusting and evil

Rather harsh? Calculating, slightly deceptive and severely misguided are traits I'd consider his less than flattering ones. I wouldn't go much further though. I'm sure he has good one's too.

Contesticle wrote:

he probably has some important connection.

no doubt

Contesticle wrote:

lets even cut this thread coz i bet that he s enjoying this moment of "popularity"
bleah

I'd be somewhat flattered for the forum if he was. However I doubt there's a whole lot of popularity here. He's more infamous, like a home-grown gambino

Ron DMC

Contesticle wrote:

the question is not wheter atomic energy is bad or good, but why a person like McGuirk, which i personally regard as disgusting and evil, which is just a student has partecipated to a tv show!
he probably has some important connection.
i told you, he is one of these sneaky person that without any ethical restraints will become a politician or something similar

I don't understand how anyone can form such an opinion of him. I know the guy, and he is in no way disgusting or evil. His political opinion may be somewhat more extreme than most, but that's no reason not to like him as a person.

I've no idea why they decided to have him on the show, but I'll watch it at two and find out. John does tend to know a lot of things about a lot of stuff, and he always has an opinion. He seems the perfect guest to liven up the late late.

wowy

cuckoo wrote:

Frankly, i'm surprised there were so many people watching the Late Late. I thought it was my own guilty secret that i settle down on the couch to watch it regularly - i'm glad there's so many other viewers out there.

Just cos other people are doing it doesn't make it any better. You still oughta be ashamed!

Now to the issue-I don't see how people's personal opinions of whether he's an evil, heartless man who'll eat babies so as to get into power, are relevant reasons to prevent him from appearing on the Late Late. Especially considering they were discussing nuclear power-hardly an issue that would normally have the hacks here who dislike him up in arms. What you saw of him in the election is a side of him, but get this, he has a life outside of Trinity. I know, surprising, eh? Anyone consider that that may have had a bearing on him being asked to appear? Finally, if you don't like the guy-fine. A lot of people don't like him. But, is it not a bit pathetic to come onto a message board and then start bitching about him? I don't like Trevor Sargeant-I think he can't have a proper discussion cos if someone says something that he disagrees with he'll just rudely, bluntly and loudly interrupt them and return to his BS point about how we should all be growing crops in our gardens, and the people in high-rise apartments should have indoor crop nursuries, oh, and that driving cars makes you sterile. However, nobody here has batted an interweb eyelid about him being on it. Right, that's the end of my incoherent rant.

Pet

Frankly, i'm surprised there were so many people watching the Late Late. I thought it was my own guilty secret that i settle down on the couch to watch it regularly - i'm glad there's so many other viewers out there.

I'd only watch the Late Late if I was in the mood for throwing rotten fruit at Pat Kenny's heinous image defiling my television screen. He makes me ill.

Agent Smith

wowy wrote:

Just cos other people are doing it doesn't make it any better. You still oughta be ashamed!

Now to the issue-I don't see how people's personal opinions of whether he's an evil, heartless man who'll eat babies so as to get into power, are relevant reasons to prevent him from appearing on the Late Late. Especially considering they were discussing nuclear power-hardly an issue that would normally have the hacks here who dislike him up in arms. What you saw of him in the election is a side of him, but get this, he has a life outside of Trinity. I know, surprising, eh? Anyone consider that that may have had a bearing on him being asked to appear? Finally, if you don't like the guy-fine. A lot of people don't like him. But, is it not a bit pathetic to come onto a message board and then start bitching about him? I don't like Trevor Sargeant-I think he can't have a proper discussion cos if someone says something that he disagrees with he'll just rudely, bluntly and loudly interrupt them and return to his BS point about how we should all be growing crops in our gardens, and the people in high-rise apartments should have indoor crop nursuries, oh, and that driving cars makes you sterile. However, nobody here has batted an interweb eyelid about him being on it. Right, that's the end of my incoherent rant.

whats Evil about him? Its his belie

SOL

When one of you becomes a director in a semi decent, right wing think tank then you can be on the late late. I was supposed to be making comment from the audience but then Trevor Sargent (bigot) doesn't really know how to shut his trap...

manonmir

The late late show contacted USI on Friday as they were stuck for people to speak for Nuclear power. USI in turn went an phoned all unions in Dublin until they found someone. It's that simple.

Ron DMC

agent smith wrote:

Worlds smallest political Quiz

I'm a centrist it seems.:)

1,000th post woot!!

ApeXaviour

manonmir wrote:

The late late show contacted USI on Friday as they were stuck for people to speak for Nuclear power. USI in turn went an phoned all unions in Dublin until they found someone. It's that simple.

Thanks for that info. I was really wondering. Though why on earth would they have chosen the USI? Did they specifically want a student?


Seems I'm liberal according to that test. I'm actually kinda surprised, I've voted PD like.


Edit: BAH! bloody plank repeat has started earlier....

Ron DMC

ApeXaviour wrote:

Though why on earth would they have chosen the USI? Did they specifically want a student?

Nuclear power is a long term issue, long term issues affect young people the most, students are generally young = get a student on the show that has an opinion.

ApeXaviour

Ronny Mitchell wrote:

Nuclear power is a long term issue, long term issues affect young people the most, students are generally young = get a student on the show that has an opinion.

Fair enough

Agent Smith

how many people are Going to watch it? ( bibi baskin is on at the mo)

ApeXaviour

agent smith wrote:

how many people are Going to watch it? ( bibi baskin is on at the mo)

I hate her... Her cocky voice is gnawing at my frontal lobe. I'm gonna put it (her) on mute while I make some food. Joe send me an msn when john comes on

Agent Smith

no probs

Pet

Why is Bibi Baskin famous again?

I was almost tempted to go into the kitchen to watch the show, but I just cleaned my bathroom instead - a far better use of my time.

Ron DMC

Can't remember. I think she had a show or something ages ago.

John's just finished now anyway. He spoke very well, but Trevor did seem to interrupt a lot and was very close-minded about the whole thing. McGuirk hardly got a word in edgeways.

Trevor Sargeant surprised me. He's actually one of the politcians i respect most and as much as I agree with him on the danger of nuclear power, he should accept that it's inevitable that we'll need to use it someday.

manonmir

manonmir wrote:

The late late show contacted USI on Friday as they were stuck for people to speak for Nuclear power. USI in turn went an phoned all unions in Dublin until they found someone. It's that simple.

It's not actually. The e-mail was received on Friday, but McGuirk was already down to be speaking on it. They were looking for audience members, not people for the panel.

Crash

As far as is my understanding of things, John was on through an FI link? maybe the man himself can correct us

cuckoo

SOL wrote:

When one of you becomes a director in a semi decent, right wing think tank then you can be on the late late. I was supposed to be making comment from the audience but then Trevor Sargent (bigot) doesn't really know how to shut his trap...

Where do i sign up to become a director in a semi decent, right wing think tank? 'Cos i really, really want to be on the Late Late.

/sarcasm mode off

(yup, i'm still smarting about never getting to be one of those kids trying out toys on the late late toy show)

Personally, i think too much time was given to the french pro nuclear scientist. And, i don't think Trevor Sargent is a bigot, i'd imagine it was a very frustrating panel to be on for anyone, McGuirk included, as they were all continually cut off by Kenny, who kept hopping from person to person like a goldfish with ADHD.

But, really people, the most pertinent issue is - wasn't it a lovely suit that McGuirk was wearing?

Edwardius

Thirdfox wrote:

Apex: isn't tritium readily available from seawater? Although I think nuclear fusion is a great way to go power-wise that power can easily be channelled into more destructive uses. Someone with a nuclear fusion bomb can certainly hold the world to ransom.

No, Deuterium is available from seawater, tritium, as far as I know is got from bombarding lithium with neutrons. As regards "destructive" uses, the fusion (H) bomb was the first display of fusion power on earth so it already had been channelled to destructive uses. The russians levelled an island with one, possibly one of the coolest videos I've ever seen. You can hold the world to ransom with a hell of a lot less than a H-bomb (large crowd, nerve gas)

Thirdfox wrote:

How's solar energy developing? What is the current efficiency levels for them?

On the actual point - didn't see the programme, can't comment

about 25% conversion from solar energy to electricity, but the things are expensive as ****.

apex.. wrote:

He may. If it's public office you're thinking of however I'd be quite surprised. As long as there are people (like angry_banana say) willing to dig and reveal to all that his opinions and intensions are not actually compatible with the majority's, it won't happen. I see the SU election for him all over again.

That doesn't have any implications on his performance in such a trivial task as su president, it's not as if he could genocide some minorities or raise taxes. Anyway, what's wrong with blowing up iraq? sure it gave us a reason to watch the news for a while!

Who's this "testicle" character? It's people like him that make me support and vote for mcguirk, that's some good canvassing!

SOL

http://www.thefi.org/ is the website of the organisation that John was representing.

BTW, did noone catch trevor sargent's (bigot) comment you wouldn't know your not irish?

cuckoo

SOL wrote:

http://www.thefi.org/ is the website of the organisation that John was representing.

BTW, did noone catch trevor sargent's (bigot) comment you wouldn't know your not irish?

But, John may have been contacted via the FI, but he wasn't introduced as being from it - the intro was something along the lines of 'economist - john mcguirk', which was sloppy on the late late's part.

What exactly was sargent's comment in relation to?

And, having looked at the above linky i had to giggle - the sole woman involved is mentioned in her blurb as having 'consistently opposed gender quotas and all other forms of affirmative action'. I withdraw my above question about signing up to join the freedom institute, good luck to it and all, but i don't think i'd really fit in.

shay_562

'economist - john mcguirk'

Isn't he a political science major?

I was supposed to be making comment from the audience but then Trevor Sargent (bigot) doesn't really know how to shut his trap...

All those minutes of internet research for nothing...

the sole woman involved is mentioned in her blurb as having 'consistently opposed gender quotas and all other forms of affirmative action'.

Fair play to her. Affirmative action is both patronising (suggesting that women are so incapable that they need a leg-up) and damaging to women in general, as it casts a shadow of "Well, she only got in 'cause she's got ovaries" over every woman who's successful in her chosen field.

rsynnott

mcguirkj wrote:

C'mon, I'm not that bad

Though in the spirit of evil, I'm going to take this opportunity to rejoice in the lefties being thwarted again.

Despite being quite disgustingly left wing, I am all for nuclear power; it is the most realistic clean route.

I'm glad I missed that, actually; it was likely unutterable rubbish. Discussion of nuclear power tends to be, unfortunately; most peoples' knowledge of it stops at Springfield.

Contesticle

nuclear power is CLEAN??
ahahahhaha... late late may not be serious but you are hilarious!

cuckoo

shay_562 wrote:

Fair play to her. Affirmative action is both patronising (suggesting that women are so incapable that they need a leg-up) and damaging to women in general, as it casts a shadow of "Well, she only got in 'cause she's got ovaries" over every woman who's successful in her chosen field.

Depends on how you look at it. I prefer gender ceilings to quotas myself (eg off the top of my head, if i ran the world stuff, no more that 70% of the board of state bodies should be comprised of any one gender). I'd like to see more efforts made to encourage men to train and work as primary school teachers, and in the other professions in which men are dramatically under represented.

I was more amused by it in that it was safe for the freedom institute's sole female member mentioned on their webpage to have that highlighted about herself. Is she opposed to them despite being a woman, or is her opposition a stronger statement as a woman?

And, off topic-ness abounds, shay would you think that the Trinity Access Programme and the 15% of EU places that trinity have pledged to reserve for students from non-traditional backgrounds patronising?

PHB

John McGuirk got on the late-late show because of his position within the Freedom Institute.

John will not amount to anything politically for a multitude of reasons. Despite massive personal problems, his alienation of any political group he has been involved in has led to his chances of gaining the support of any political party for office is slim to none. Thus he focuses on a think-tank, the only semi-political group which would deal with him. Ultimately however, he will make the same mistakes he always does, and alienate them aswell.

rsynnott

Contesticle wrote:

nuclear power is CLEAN??
ahahahhaha... late late may not be serious but you are hilarious!

Er, what cleaner practical source is there? Barring horrible accident (and such accidents occur through poor design and mismanagement) nothing should come out of a nuclear power plant at all save heat, possibly steam depending on design, and small amounts of nuclear waste, suitably contained. As for the waste, it's a problem, from the point of view of security of storage, but not a problem on the same scale as smog over Dublin from coal plants, and associated health problems, which seem to be the obvious alternative.

A 1000Mw plant generates about 25 tonnes of waste a year, up to 40% of which can be reprocessed.

shay_562

I prefer gender ceilings to quotas myself (eg off the top of my head, if i ran the world stuff, no more that 70% of the board of state bodies should be comprised of any one gender).

But, given that gender is pretty much an either/or situation (yeah, I know, there are three genders, but 99.9% fall into male or female) isn't a 70% ceiling simply a 30% quota with a nicer name? Both situations result in you employing women simply because of their gender and turning men away for the same reason.

And, off topic-ness abounds, shay would you think that the Trinity Access Programme and the 15% of EU places that trinity have pledged to reserve for students from non-traditional backgrounds patronising?

No, because there's genuine reason there to think that people from disadvantaged backgrounds might need some kind of assistance. I don't think that being a woman equates with starting off on a lower rung automatically, and as such I think implying it (by the aforementioned leg-up) is insulting and, by treating woman as the inferior gender, creates a cycle whereby women will continue to see themselves as needing more assistance to get to the same levels in government/business etc.