If You Insulted a Dolphin 20 Years Ago, He's Probably Still Bitter About It

In this article, Garber introduces the theory induced from a long-time experiment by Jason Bruck. Bruck wanting to test the social memory length of dolphins, studied dolphins from six different facilities, rotating the animals around and keeping track of the encounters of each dolphins. After a period of time, Bruck would play back a specific dolphin's whistle, which acts as its name, to see if he got any response from the experimental dolphin. One dolphin, Bailey, responded to one of her tankmate, Allie's whistle after 20 years of separation. Garber concludes with the theory that dolphins "may well have the capacity for relatively complex memories."

I found the introduction and the conclusion to the article a little ridiculous. Though I can see that Garber wanted to make dolphins and humans very closely related, it was comical to try and imagine the picture she gives us - meeting up a dolphin at first a bar, then a bank. On the experiment itself, I was a little upset that these dolphins were used in this way, although it was for research. Some dolphins reacted to their previous tankmates' whistles, even bumping their bodies to the speakers as if to get back a response. If their memory length is so long as to last even twenty years, the isolated feeling they got during the experiment will probably also stick as well.

This new piece of information about dolphins' memory capacities is pretty interesting because dolphins' level of intelligence has also been widely debated for a period of time.

Article: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/08/if-you-insulted-a-dolphin-20-years-ago-hes-probably-still-bitter-about-it/278446/#disqus_thread

Florida Executes Mentally Ill Man Despite Constitutional Prohibition

John Ferguson, a man of 65, was recently executed for his crimes of murdering six people in an armed robbery in 1977 and two school students the following year. This ruling of Florida's Supreme Court isn't anything outstanding, except for the fact that the Supreme Court violated the Constitution. Ferguson's lawyers clearly argued that executing Ferguson strictly goes against the Eighth Amendment. The U.S. Constitution prohibits putting mentally ill people to death and yet Ferguson had been diagnosed for forty years as schizophrenic.

At first, this article wasn't really new considering that there are many cases in which the Supreme Court goes against their own Constitution. However, as the article progresses, the author incorporates many evidence that directly points out the wrong in the decision to execute Ferguson. Not only did it misinterpret the Eighth Amendment, but it also went against a ruling the Supreme Court had previously made in the Panetti vs. Quarterman case, in which it ruled that "a prisoner about to be executed must not only be aware of the punishment they are about to receive, but also have a "rational understanding of it.'" Because Ferguson was completely convinced that he was the prince of God and that he was captured by communists that want to bring him down, he does not meet this standard. It was also a little shocking to read that the court overlooked Ferguson's belief in his own immortality because "that...belief...was shared by millions of other American Christians." It's wrong to make a decision, going against the Constitution and their own previous ruling, based on one little statement that showed no justification of their decision. It's also upsetting that this rash decision cannot be changed because Ferguson's life has already been taken.

Article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/05/florida-execute-mentally-ill-john-ferguson