4 ms·

Obama Offers Millions for Muslim Tech Fund

10 points by newacc 17y ago

tptacek 17y ago
Funding for technology projects as part of foreign aid to countries with predominantly Muslim populations != "Muslim Tech Fund". We don't call foreign aid to Israel "Jewish aid".
- SamAtt 17y ago
  2 Things here... 1. This is marketing. The Obama administration is attempting to use this as an olive branch to the Muslim community in these countries so that those Muslim's who hate America might say "Hey, maybe those Americans aren't so bad after all". Hence the name. 2. Israel is one country while this is to many countries. The only thing those countries have in common is that they are predominantly Muslim (and in fact, as I said in Point #1, that's why we're giving them the money in the first place)
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Who called it the "Muslim tech fund"? Not, it appears, Obama. They're overtly targeting Muslim-majority countries, but there are people of many different faiths in those countries. This news article also begs a question. The fund targets the Mid-East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia. Given that Europe, Russia, Japan, and Australia don't particularly need foreign aid from us, what does that leave aside from the "Muslim nations"? South America and Southern Africa. I think we may sometimes lose sight of how broadly influential Islam is in the rest of the world.
_h4xr 17y ago
This seems like an incredibly poor idea. For whatever reason, people with engineering and hard-science backgrounds are much more likely to become terrorists (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/engineers_terrorists_wikipedia_oxford_sociology/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/engineers_terrorists...). And dollar-for-dollar, US companies still seem to get more out of engineering investments than overseas companies do (even when they're using workers who immigrated). And with a deficit like the one we have, throwing more money at uncertain projects is a poor plan, even if it is investment, rather than spending. So, this is a waste of money we don't have, in order to get worse results that it would get if we spent it here, with the side effect that it could increase the supply of terrorists.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  > people with engineering and hard-science backgrounds are much more likely to become terrorists Of all the out-of-context-nonsense this has to be the best piece ever. Seriously ? You think maybe that errrm, toddlers or gradeschoolers or writers are going to be as adept as technical people at blowing stuff up or destroying it ? The Army corps of engineers is just as good at putting stuff together as they are at taking it apart. Of course technical people would be the ones you find behind successful acts of destruction. But that does not mean that all engineering and hard-science types are more likely to become terrorists. It just means that if you take a random sampling of people and you test them for terrorist potential you will find that the technical ones will do better at it. If this is the 'right attitude', then why bother letting those scary muslims have any education at all ? Maybe we should bomb all those schools, that way they're certainly not going to be engineers and science types. Bollocks. What I think is that if having an education will make them less susceptible to brainwashing. Engineering takes skill and critical thought. If that means that the few engineers that will go through this program ending up as terrorists will be better at it, then that's just too bad, but as a scheme education certainly beats arming opposing groups (the normal way to deal with this problem).
  - m0th87 17y ago
    While the OP's argument is easily absurd, there is (contrary to intuition) little causality between education and terrorism: http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/terrorism2.pdf http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/terrorism2.pdf But even if a better education caused or prevented terrorism, what's orders of magnitude more significant in this fund is the good PR it generates for America.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      Ok, thanks for that correction. It seemed to make some kind of sense. My 'wishful thinking' is probably that educated people make better decisions in life, pity to see that isn't the case. And I fully agree on the PR factor, it's a pretty smart move. Educate instead of arm. It makes perfect sense too.
  - 17y ago
gsmaverick 17y ago
For a country that is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy this is a prime example of poor money management.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Au contraire, it is excellent money management. The PR value of this is easily orders of magnitudes larger than the money spent. A country that is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy should not start wars it can't afford, that is a prime example of poor money management.
  - gsmaverick 17y ago
    Good PR won't save you from bankruptcy!
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      It may actually. By doing some good PR now you will be able to save yourself a multiple of that at some point in the future. The US needs allies, what better way to get them than through good PR. Wars don't work nearly as well and cost a whole lot more. They also make you more enemies, and the allies that you had may look at you in a new light.
- tptacek 17y ago
  Foreign aid dollars are a negligible portion of our overall budget.
jasonmcalacanis 17y ago
While I like the idea of trying to inspire the (radical?) muslim countries in the middle east to develop out of the oil market, I don't think our $150M--or even $1.5B--will change anything. The leaders in the middle east need to make these investments with their endless piles of cash.... and historically they haven't (Dubai for finance being a notable exception). The truth is we should be disengaging from these countries on a business level by putting massive investment into solar, wind and nuclear. The investments in our recent wars in the region could have easily made us energy independent by now..... if Bush or Obama were true leaders they would have focused our resources on the goal of energy independence.
- gwern 17y ago
  > The leaders in the middle east need to make these investments with their endless piles of cash.... and historically they haven't (Dubai for finance being a notable exception). Dubai's lustre is fading though - have you been reading the articles on how they've been hit by the last 2 years, may yet default on the national debt & have been bailed out but are frantically searching for further capital? I always was a little skeptical of their absurd building projects, but I assumed there must be enough real value there to keep things afloat; I may yet be proven wrong.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Excellent points, but there will be an ROI on that money. America has a big image problem abroad, Obama is a big difference from Bush but it will need more than a 'pretty face' to change attitudes. And the fact that this gesture gets broad play in the targeted countries means it is already paying off. For the price of less than one day of war in Iraq (255 M or so ?) it seems to be pretty cheap. The independence of oil for energy can't come soon enough.
- mh_ 17y ago
  Is pretty awesome how "muslim countries" has to be pre-fixed with the word radical.

10 points by newacc 17y ago

Funding for technology projects as part of foreign aid to countries with predominantly Muslim populations != "Muslim Tech Fund". We don't call foreign aid to Israel "Jewish aid".

SamAtt 17y ago
2 Things here... 1. This is marketing. The Obama administration is attempting to use this as an olive branch to the Muslim community in these countries so that those Muslim's who hate America might say "Hey, maybe those Americans aren't so bad after all". Hence the name. 2. Israel is one country while this is to many countries. The only thing those countries have in common is that they are predominantly Muslim (and in fact, as I said in Point #1, that's why we're giving them the money in the first place)
- tptacek 17y ago
  Who called it the "Muslim tech fund"? Not, it appears, Obama. They're overtly targeting Muslim-majority countries, but there are people of many different faiths in those countries. This news article also begs a question. The fund targets the Mid-East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia. Given that Europe, Russia, Japan, and Australia don't particularly need foreign aid from us, what does that leave aside from the "Muslim nations"? South America and Southern Africa. I think we may sometimes lose sight of how broadly influential Islam is in the rest of the world.

_h4xr 17y ago

This seems like an incredibly poor idea. For whatever reason, people with engineering and hard-science backgrounds are much more likely to become terrorists (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/engineers_terrorists_wikipedia_oxford_sociology/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/engineers_terrorists...). And dollar-for-dollar, US companies still seem to get more out of engineering investments than overseas companies do (even when they're using workers who immigrated). And with a deficit like the one we have, throwing more money at uncertain projects is a poor plan, even if it is investment, rather than spending. So, this is a waste of money we don't have, in order to get worse results that it would get if we spent it here, with the side effect that it could increase the supply of terrorists.

jacquesm 17y ago
> people with engineering and hard-science backgrounds are much more likely to become terrorists Of all the out-of-context-nonsense this has to be the best piece ever. Seriously ? You think maybe that errrm, toddlers or gradeschoolers or writers are going to be as adept as technical people at blowing stuff up or destroying it ? The Army corps of engineers is just as good at putting stuff together as they are at taking it apart. Of course technical people would be the ones you find behind successful acts of destruction. But that does not mean that all engineering and hard-science types are more likely to become terrorists. It just means that if you take a random sampling of people and you test them for terrorist potential you will find that the technical ones will do better at it. If this is the 'right attitude', then why bother letting those scary muslims have any education at all ? Maybe we should bomb all those schools, that way they're certainly not going to be engineers and science types. Bollocks. What I think is that if having an education will make them less susceptible to brainwashing. Engineering takes skill and critical thought. If that means that the few engineers that will go through this program ending up as terrorists will be better at it, then that's just too bad, but as a scheme education certainly beats arming opposing groups (the normal way to deal with this problem).
- m0th87 17y ago
  While the OP's argument is easily absurd, there is (contrary to intuition) little causality between education and terrorism: http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/terrorism2.pdf http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/terrorism2.pdf But even if a better education caused or prevented terrorism, what's orders of magnitude more significant in this fund is the good PR it generates for America.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Ok, thanks for that correction. It seemed to make some kind of sense. My 'wishful thinking' is probably that educated people make better decisions in life, pity to see that isn't the case. And I fully agree on the PR factor, it's a pretty smart move. Educate instead of arm. It makes perfect sense too.
- 17y ago

gsmaverick 17y ago

For a country that is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy this is a prime example of poor money management.

jacquesm 17y ago
Au contraire, it is excellent money management. The PR value of this is easily orders of magnitudes larger than the money spent. A country that is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy should not start wars it can't afford, that is a prime example of poor money management.
- gsmaverick 17y ago
  Good PR won't save you from bankruptcy!
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    It may actually. By doing some good PR now you will be able to save yourself a multiple of that at some point in the future. The US needs allies, what better way to get them than through good PR. Wars don't work nearly as well and cost a whole lot more. They also make you more enemies, and the allies that you had may look at you in a new light.
tptacek 17y ago
Foreign aid dollars are a negligible portion of our overall budget.

jasonmcalacanis 17y ago

While I like the idea of trying to inspire the (radical?) muslim countries in the middle east to develop out of the oil market, I don't think our $150M--or even $1.5B--will change anything. The leaders in the middle east need to make these investments with their endless piles of cash.... and historically they haven't (Dubai for finance being a notable exception). The truth is we should be disengaging from these countries on a business level by putting massive investment into solar, wind and nuclear. The investments in our recent wars in the region could have easily made us energy independent by now..... if Bush or Obama were true leaders they would have focused our resources on the goal of energy independence.

gwern 17y ago
> The leaders in the middle east need to make these investments with their endless piles of cash.... and historically they haven't (Dubai for finance being a notable exception). Dubai's lustre is fading though - have you been reading the articles on how they've been hit by the last 2 years, may yet default on the national debt & have been bailed out but are frantically searching for further capital? I always was a little skeptical of their absurd building projects, but I assumed there must be enough real value there to keep things afloat; I may yet be proven wrong.
jacquesm 17y ago
Excellent points, but there will be an ROI on that money. America has a big image problem abroad, Obama is a big difference from Bush but it will need more than a 'pretty face' to change attitudes. And the fact that this gesture gets broad play in the targeted countries means it is already paying off. For the price of less than one day of war in Iraq (255 M or so ?) it seems to be pretty cheap. The independence of oil for energy can't come soon enough.
mh_ 17y ago
Is pretty awesome how "muslim countries" has to be pre-fixed with the word radical.