Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
 Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
Erin White

FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA 
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

L

ate 
philosopher 
and 
novelist 
George 
Santayana 
famously 
said, 
“Those 
who 
cannot 
remember 
the 
past 
are 
condemned to repeat it.” In 
recent weeks, this sentiment 
has showed itself to be true in 
regards to the ever-escalating 
governmental 
crisis 
in 
Venezuela. As he is prone to 
do, Russian President Vladimir 
Putin has decided to extend the 
tentacles of his foreign policy 
into places it doesn’t belong. 
This 
time 
he 
has 
chosen 
South America, and has acted 
by providing military aid to 
the embattled president of 
Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro.
Maduro, under immense 
protest 
and 
pressure 
from 
the 
Venezuelan 
people 
to 
abdicate 
his 
premiership 
after 
potentially 
fraudulent 
elections 
last 
May, 
has 
sought to remain in power 
at all costs. One particularly 
extreme measure to preserve 
his power was his blocking of 
international 
humanitarian 
aid to relieve people who have 
been crushed by a crumbling 
economy, viewing such aid 
as an imperialistic American 
Trojan horse. In the fight to 
decide Venezuela’s future, the 
United States and most Latin 
American and European Union 
countries 
have 
decided 
to 
support Juan Guaidó, president 
of 
the 
National 
Assembly, 
as interim head of state. If 
he becomes the provisional 
president 
of 
Venezuela, 
Guaidó says he will call for 
new elections to determine 
democratically who will rule 
his country, after leading the 
charge against Maduro and his 
corrupt election last year.
Along with their packages 
of material aid, the U.S. and its 
allies in the Venezuela crisis 
have tried to bring international 
legitimacy to Guaidó’s efforts 
to restore democracy. Their 
biggest challenge in doing so, 
however, has been gaining 
the support of the Venezuelan 
military. 
In 
an 
interview 
published in The Washington 
Post on Feb. 7, Antonio Rivero, 
a former Venezuelan general 
who was exiled in 2014, noted 
that challenges in this regard 
mainly come from the military 
allegiances to late President 
Hugo Chávez and his ideas. 
Some Venezuelans see Maduro 
as the “son” of Chavez and 
his legacy. Rivero also noted 
that military personnel are 
concerned that their illegal 
activities, 
such 
as 
black 
market drug trafficking, will 
be punished under Guaidó 
or another future president’s 
rule. As such, it has proven 
difficult for those who support 
an interim Guaidó presidency 
to 
convince 
the 
military 
leadership in Venezuela to join 
the cause and abandon Maduro.
Moscow 
has 
made 
this 
task even more difficult in 

the last month, after planes 
carrying 100 Russian troops 
landed in Venezuela. Putin 
hopes to bolster the staying 
power of Maduro and fortify 
his military support with his 
own forces. For quite some 
time, Russia has provided aid 
and other resources to the 
Maduro regime, which, unlike 
aid coordinated by Guaido, 
was accepted by the military 
government. 
On 
Thursday, 
U.S. President Donald Trump 
scolded Putin, telling him to 
“get out” of Venezuela, and 
his national security adviser 
John Bolton warned against 
external interference in the 
Western hemisphere by states 
seeking to prop up Maduro. The 
Russian president responded 
by 
promising 
to 
continue 
arming Caracas and to keep 
troops there.
This pattern of involvement 
from Russia is eerily similar 
to its actions in Syria shortly 
after 
the 
breakout 
of 
the 
Syrian Civil War. In the cases 
of both Venezuela and Syria, 
two authoritarian leaders have 
acted against their own people 
in order to maintain power. 
The U.S. placed a plethora of 
sanctions against the offending 
regimes. Then, Russia came 
in to support the regimes and 
keep the tyrannical leader in 
power against the will of the 
people. Both Damascus and 
Caracas have had historic ties 
with Russia, and Putin likely 
hopes to assure that these 
governments 
remain 
firmly 
allied with Moscow in the 
foreseeable future. The thought 
of Venezuela — a member of 
OPEC and a longtime Russian 
ally — growing closer to the 
West is likely a deep concern of 
Putin’s.
Further, Russia is not the 
only state with which the U.S. 
and Europe have had frosty 
relations 
that 
is 
growing 
more involved in the situation 
in Venezuela. China, also a 
supporter of both the Assad and 
Maduro regimes, has come out 
in support of Russian efforts to 
maintain Maduro’s rule. This 
February, China vetoed a UN 
Security 
Council 
resolution 
that 
would 
have 
spoken 
out 
against 
the 
fraudulent 
elections in which Maduro 
claims to have been re-elected 
and called for another round 
of elections. On March 26, 
Chinese 
Foreign 
Ministry 
spokesman Geng Shuang took 
a shot at U.S. efforts to halt 
Russia’s interference by stating 
that “Latin America (is not) a 
certain country’s backyard.” 
Beijing’s 
intent 
to 
again 
support Russia, as well as their 
own agenda in Venezuela, is 
not a surprise.
China has also worked to 
maintain strong relations with 
Caracas since the turn of the 
century, 
eyeing 
Venezuela’s 
chief 
resource: 
oil. 
When 
Venezuela was ruled by Chavez, 

the two countries cooperated 
on oil trade on a large scale. 
Though 
it 
has 
stressed 
a 
policy of non-interference in 
international affairs, China has 
subtly been active within Latin 
America, quietly advancing its 
own goals. A prime example 
was 
in 
2011, 
when 
China 
financed 
and 
built 
Costa 
Rica’s Estadio Nacional soccer 
stadium as a supposed gift to 
the country. The gift came 
with a price, however: Costa 
Rica soon cut its trade with 
Taiwan, a longtime adversary 
to Beijing. It also opened a 
large free trade agreement 
with China. Though China’s 
government claims it avoids 
interfering with the affairs of 
sovereign governments, even 
in Latin America, it is on record 
for having used bribes to get 
what it wants from other states. 
So much for respecting another 
nation’s independent will.
Trump 
and 
Secretary 
of 
State 
Michael 
Pompeo 
should remember the past and 
realize that they must escalate 
their efforts to see Guaidó 
peacefully take the role of 
interim president in Venezuela. 
Though Trump’s resistance to 
sending troops to Venezuela 
or elsewhere abroad may be 
justified, his administration’s 
lack of concrete action in 
response 
to 
Russia’s 
and 
China’s efforts will lead to a 
bad outcome for the United 
States and the Venezuelan 
people.
Former President Barack 
Obama waited too long when 
Putin entrenched his forces in 
the Syria conflict and China 
aided Assad on the world 
stage. Though the Venezuelan 
crisis 
presents 
different 
challenges, the same must not 
be allowed to happen. If prior 
mistakes are repeated, then 
with or without U.S. sanctions 
against the Maduro regime, 
the people of Venezuela will 
continue to starve and suffer, 
and their economy will be 
run further into the ground. 
Hyperinflation has risen to a 
historic rate, and citizens are 
already forced to make drastic 
choices such as whether to eat 
stray dogs and cats or let their 
families go hungry.
In the face of this mounting 
regional threat, Washington 
should 
also 
remember 
the 
foundational 
U.S. 
foreign 
policy 
established 
by 
the 
Monroe 
Doctrine. 
Hostile 
states 
consolidating 
their 
military 
power 
with 
a 
regional adversary has proven 
frighteningly 
dangerous 
to 
America in the not-too-distant 
past. Though the Cold War 
may be over, Trump should 
remember that a threat to 
freedom 
and 
democracy 
abroad — especially within our 
hemisphere — is a threat to us.

ADITHYA SANJAY | COLUMN

The technology that is slowly taking over our lives
I

nternet of things. It’s a 
term that most everyone 
has 
heard 
about, 
but 
also 
one 
that 
nobody 
actually 
understands. 
The 
reality 
is, 
the 
internet of things, 
IoT for short, is 
a 
revolutionary 
technology 
that 
has real potential 
to 
shake 
up 
the 
future of integrated 
technology. It is a 
gateway to artificial 
intelligence and the direct 
pathway to business success.
But what exactly is it? IoT is 
pretty much everything it says 
it is. It is the huge network of 
objects and everyday devices 
that are connected to the 
internet. While we are used 
to the traditional smartphone, 
laptop and tablet as the only 
entryway to the internet, IoT 
has managed to really shake 
things 
up 
by 
introducing 
potential for connectivity for 
other objects like refrigerators, 
pillows and even umbrellas. 
Such 
technology 
creates 
the 
avenue 
for 
artificial 
intelligence 
and 
inherently 
“smart” devices that can better 
cater to personalization and 
specific function.
The fact of the matter is 
that the number of connected 
devices is expected to nearly 
triple by 2025 to an expected 
number of 75 billion devices. 
Not only this, but the worth of 
the IoT industry is expected 
to grow to a whopping $6.2 
trillion, 
greatly 
increasing 
the projected maximums for 
health care and manufacturing. 
Evidently, 
the 
growth 
is 
indicative of changing times.
How might it affect us? 
For one, IoT is seemingly 
turning around the traditional 
cloud-based computing model 
that has reigned supreme for 
the past decade or so. Cloud 
computing is a fairly new trend 
in a back-and-forth history 
of computing. While the first 
computer was centralized, the 
introduction of servers created 
a more distributed model. 

Inevitably, 
the 
move 
back 
toward a decentralized system 
is forthcoming, and it seems 
highly likely that 
the IoT might just 
be the movement 
that 
will 
pull 
it 
off. As connected 
devices 
become 
more 
and 
more 
complex, it becomes 
tougher 
to 
solely 
rely on the cloud, 
especially 
when 
intricate 
decisions 
and 
output 
are 
needed in very short periods 
of time. Expect to see a trend 
toward this in the near future.
Perhaps on a more negative 
note, however, is the problem 
of 
security. 
The 
moment 
we 
increase 
the 
numbers 
of devices connected to the 
network, the more exposed and 
readily accessible our personal 
information and preferences 
become. As such, the IoT 
movement does pose quite a 
significant risk in this sense. 
This is perhaps validated by 
the Mirai botnet attack in 
2016 that led many to fear an 
apocalypse of the internet. 
While perpetrated by a few 
teenagers with intentions far 
less grand than the ensuing 
attack, 
the 
malware 
was 
successfully 
able 
to 
hack 
into various IoT devices and 
leverage them to create a 
malicious network of internet-
connected 
devices 
called 
botnets to complete a task 
that managed to render much 
of the internet unavailable on 
the East Coast for a day. And 
even though IoT security has 
arguably advanced quite a bit 
since then, there still is a lot of 
ground to be made, especially 
when reports show only “48 
percent 
of 
businesses 
can 
even detect whether they’ve 
suffered an IoT breach” and 
“only 59 percent of companies 
encrypt all their IoT-related 
data.”
Nevertheless, 
IoT 
maintains its transformative 
benefits, much of which lie 
in the arena of sustainability. 
As such devices begin to 

be implemented more and 
more, it is easier for wasteful 
appliances and products to 
become more cost and energy 
efficient. Take, for example, 
Cree SmartCast Technology, 
a new application of smart 
lighting. 
The 
application 
of 
IoT 
technology 
allows 
for 
increased 
savings 
in 
energy 
and 
other 
costs 
while creating an integrated 
lighting system that offers 
more 
personalization 
than 
other technologically-lacking 
alternatives.
A 
massive 
future 
uptrend in big data comes 
as a result of this. Many of 
these technologies rely on 
maintaining vast directories 
of data and monitoring them 
in order to create increased 
personalization. For example, 
as cities begin to adopt IoT 
solutions 
to 
make 
their 
operations efficient, a natural 
byproduct is the collection 
of massive amounts of user 
data and preferences. But in 
order to create intelligent and 
innovative systems, this data 
must be sorted through. Big 
data offers this solution by 
combining 
volume, 
variety, 
velocity, veracity and value 
to create flexible and smart 
programs. It isn’t a coincidence 
that “data scientist” is being 
called the sexiest job of the 
21st 
century. 
And 
while 
naysayers claim that big data 
doesn’t have a future in the 
face of “fast data,” the future 
of artificial intelligence and 
machine 
learning 
simply 
becomes an impossible task 
if efficient big data solutions 
don’t exist.
To get to the point, IoT is 
where the future is. So, if you 
haven’t chosen your major 
yet, consider data science as 
a possibility. And if you have 
decided 
your 
major, 
learn 
some data science anyway. 
Because before you know it, 
IoT will have taken over your 
life.

A

nyone who has ever 
played 
or 
watched 
sports has experienced 
this feeling: When everyone’s 
heart drops, the game stops 
and we all stand still. No, I am 
not talking about hitting the 
game winning shot that leaves 
you breathless. I am talking 
about the only true moment of 
communal tragedy in sports: a 
serious injury.
Jusuf Nurkić, an NBA player 
for the Portland Trail Blazers, 
experienced an injury March 
26 that made many Reddit 
users “feel like crying.” The 
injury happened on a routine 
basketball play when Nurkić 
went up for a rebound and, on 
his way down, landed on an 
opposing players foot, causing 
his leg to bend and snap in 
half just above his ankle. 
Nurkić is out indefinitely with 
compound fractures to his left 
tibia and fibula.
As I put my hand in front 
of my eyes and tried to look 
away from the video clip of 
Nurkić’s 
gruesome 
injury, 
another feeling began to swell 
over me: a feeling of shame 
and guilt. In reality, when 
I clicked on a NSFW injury 
video, I knew that it would 
be gruesome. In fact, I even 
let the video play over a few 
times to make sure that I had 
really seen what happened 
to him. I made sure to really 
soak in how horrifying the 
whole thing was. Why did I 
choose to watch something 
I knew would send shivers 
down my spine? Why was 
I trying to look away from 
something I chose to watch? 
More importantly, why were 
other people doing this exact 
same thing?
I think the best way to get 
at these questions is to start 
with a much larger question 
about the logic of sports 
fandom: Why do people watch 
sports? As I see it, sports 
fans are compelled by one 

driving desire: the desire for 
the spectacle. We lust for a 
window into the unimaginable 
and 
the 
unbelievable. 
In 
the most spectacular sports 
moments, our sense of self can 
drift away and we can become 
entranced by the miraculous 
movements 
of 
the 
human 
body. It is this fading away 
from the personal that allows 
for fan bases to turn into 
pseudo-religious institutions 
and for people to yell at their 
TV screens and jump for joy. 
Our bodies and minds become 
so mesmerized by sporting 
spectacles that we cease to 
have the ability to control 
ourselves.

But what makes a sporting 
spectacle different from other 
spectacles like movies and art 
exhibitions? As I see it, one 
common thread that ties all 
sports together is an emphasis 
on the athletic capabilities 
of bodies. The Olympics are 
a perfect example of this 
idea. The Olympics are a 
place where the strengths 
and weakness of every body 
type are put on full display — 
where the limits of the human 
body are tested in the labs we 
call stadiums. It seems fitting, 
then, that sports, a fusion of 
the spectacle and the body, 
are a place where the beautiful 
accomplishments of the body 
and 
the 
body’s 
grotesque 
failures are displayed and 
enjoyed by sports fans.
What I have been calling 

the 
“grotesque” 
refers 
to 
injuries in which the body gets 
crushed and cracked in ways 
we never thought imaginable, 
but it is worth considering 
how the “grotesque” might 
also be thought of as a form 
of violence. In both instances 
of violence and grotesque 
injuries, we find wounded 
bodies screaming out for help. 
Put simply, we see people in 
pain.
In modern sports fandom, 
we often like to pretend that 
our lust for violence does not 
pull us closer in. For example, 
most football fans, like myself, 
pretend that we watch the 
game for clever strategies 
and 
teamwork. 
Yet, 
it 
is 
quite obvious that football is 
structured around the idea of 
bodies violently crashing into 
each other. A quick genealogy 
of sports further shows how 
we 
have 
sublimated 
our 
values when we claim to hate 
violence but love sports like 
football. Some of the first 
Western sports were built 
around honoring violent acts 
like limb dislocation and eye-
gouging.
Every time we flip on a 
game, like the one where 
Nurkić cracked his leg in half, 
we tell ourselves that we hope 
to see graceful athletic plays, 
cutting edge strategy, and 
our team win; however, deep 
down, we also want to see 
violence, mental lapses and the 
other team lose. The virality 
of injuries like Nurkić’s shows 
that our drive to watch sports 
is powered by success and 
failure, by bodily spectacles 
of both grace and violence. In 
short, the reason that I chose 
to click on the Nurkić injury 
video is the same reason I 
choose to click on a LeBron 
James highlight: I want to see 
a bodily spectacle.

REED ROSENBACHER | COLUMN

The cultural logic of the gruesome injury

Reed Rosenbacher can be reached 

at rrosenb@umich.edu.

Adithya Sanjay can be reached at 

asanjay@umich.edu.

Russia and China bring a cold reality to Venezuela

NOAH ENTE | COLUMN

Noah Ente can be reached at 

noahente@umich.edu.

As I see it, 
sports fans are 
compelled by one 
driving desire: 
the desire for the 
spectacle

SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK

The Opinion section has created a space in The Michigan 
Daily for first-person accounts of sexual assault and 
its corresponding personal, academic and legal 
implications. Submission information can be found at 
https://tinyurl.com/survivorsspeak2019.

ADITHYA
SANJAY

