The Novel Alice s Adventures, Alice Falls Asleep And...

Many have compared life to a journey over the course of which, one experiences dozens of tumultuous changes and transitions. On this journey, the human body continually undergoes a developmental pattern of physical, mental, and social modifications. Even in the realm of literature, fictional characters inevitably follow this fate. In literature the stage, between childhood innocence and adulthood, characters transform in what is referred to as coming of age, otherwise known as adolescence. Because all humans experience this transition, it establishes coming of age as a timeless universal literary theme. Among coming of age novels include Lewis Carroll’s tale about a seven-year-old Victorian girl named Alice. In the novel Alice’s Adventures†¦show more content†¦The hallway contains dozens of doors that are all locked. Alice’s pre-adolescent stage parallels with her position in the hallway. Alice’s position in the hallway represents that she is at a stage stuck between being a child and a young woman. She posses a small golden key to the garden door, the only door that Alice cannot enter due to her size. Thus, her journey and her self-awareness begin when she strives to fit into the garden door. Issues concerning her size, identity, and her social exchanges with both Wonderland and its creatures spur and characterize Alice’s development towards becoming a young woman. In particular, Alice’s fluctuating size and â€Å"opening out like† (Carroll 11) a telescope parallel with a child’s seemingly spontaneous growth spurts, which occur frequently and most noticeably during pre-adolescent and adolescent years. In fact, Alice Liddell, the inspiration for the original tale, was ten when Lewis Carroll (the pen name of Charles Dodgson) first told the tale (Vallone 245). In addition, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland began as tale about the adventures of seven year-old Alice Liddell (Vallone 245). In reality, most children like Alice Liddell grow, but in Wonderland, Alice changed drastically and symbolically. Physically Alice’s growth correlates in many instances with her behavior. For instance, prior to drinking the mysterious liquid, Alice ponders on the substance’s toxicity, however, she fails to consider possible outcomes while forgetting

Goldberg v. Kelly Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact

Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) asked the Supreme Court to determine whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to welfare recipients who are about to lose their benefits. The landmark case hinged on whether or not public assistance could be considered â€Å"property† and whether the interests of the state or the individual took precedence. Fast Facts: Goldberg v. Kelly Case Argued: October 13, 1969Decision Issued: March 23, 1970Petitioner: Jack R. Goldberg, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New YorkRespondent: John Kelly, on behalf of NY residents receiving financial assistanceKey Questions:  Can state and city officials terminate welfare benefits without providing recipients with an evidentiary hearing? Are welfare recipients protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?Majority: Justices Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, White, MarshallDissenting: Justices Burger, Black, Stewart  Ruling: Procedural due process applies to welfare recipients at risk of losing their benefits. Welfare is a statutory entitlement and can be considered property. State officials must conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to ending someones benefits. Facts of the Case New York State terminated the benefits of New York City residents receiving assistance from the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program and New York States home relief program. John Kelly, who had been stripped of his benefits without notice, acted as the lead plaintiff on behalf of about 20 New York City residents. At the time, there was no procedure in place for notifying welfare recipients in advance that their benefits would be stopped. Shortly after Kelly filed suit, city and state officials adopted policies for notifying an individual about the loss of benefits pre-termination and included a hearing option post-termination. Under the new policies, state and city officials were required to: Give notice seven days before terminating benefits.Notify the residents that they may request a review of the decision within seven days.Task a reviewing official with â€Å"expeditiously† deciding whether or not to suspend or discontinue aid.Prevent aid from being discontinued prior to entering a finding.Explain that a former recipient may prepare a written letter for a higher official to take into consideration while reviewing the decision to terminate benefits.Offer the former-recipient a â€Å"fair hearing† post-termination in which the former recipient may give oral testimony and present evidence before an independent state hearing officer. Kelly and the residents alleged that the policies were not enough to satisfy due process. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found in favor of the residents. Cutting off a welfare recipient in desperate need of public assistance without a prior hearing would be unconscionable, the District Court found. The state appealed the decision and the Supreme Court took on the case to settle the dispute. Constitutional Issues The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment reads, â€Å"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Can public assistance be considered â€Å"property?† Can a state terminate public assistance without an evidentiary hearing?   Arguments The residents focused on the pre-termination procedure, arguing that it violated the due process clause by not allowing them to advocate on their own behalf. Public assistance was more than a privilege and suddenly terminating it, with or without notice, could jeopardize their ability to provide for themselves and their families. Attorneys on behalf of city and state officials argued that providing due process hearings pre-termination would create too great a burden on the state. Stopping benefits was a matter of cutting costs. A hearing could be triggered post-termination, to allow former recipients to advocate for the reinstatement of benefits. Majority Opinion Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. delivered the 5-3 decision. The majority found that public assistance is closer to property than a privilege and therefore covered under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Brennan, on behalf of the majority, weighed the state interest of cutting costs against the recipient’s interest in receiving a fair hearing. The recipients interest carried more weight, the Court found, because public assistance beneficiaries could undergo significant harm when losing aid. Justice Brennan wrote: â€Å"For qualified recipients, welfare provides the means to obtain essential food, clothing, housing, and medical care. Thus, the crucial factor in this context ... is that termination of aid pending resolution of a controversy over eligibility may deprive an eligible recipient of the very means by which to live while he waits.† Justice Brennan emphasized the importance of providing someone with the â€Å"opportunity to be heard.† The process offered by New York State officials prior to terminating benefits did not offer the recipient the chance to speak to an administrator, cross-examine witnesses, or present evidence on their behalf. These three elements were essential to ensuring due process in pre-termination proceedings, Justice Brennan wrote. Dissenting Opinion Justice Hugo Black dissented. The majority had stretched the Fourteenth Amendment too far in granting procedural due process to welfare recipients pre-termination, he argued. Decisions about state and federal programs like the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program should be left to the legislators. Justice Brennans reasoning was suitable for a report from the House Committee on Education and Labor but woefully insufficient as a legal opinion from the Supreme Court, Justice Black wrote. The Courts findings amounted to a decision about what would be fair and humane procedure for terminating benefits, rather than an exercise in applying the text of the Constitution or past decisions. Impact Goldberg v. Kelly was the start of an era of procedural due process rulings from the Supreme Court. At Justice Brennans retirement, he reflected on Goldberg v. Kelly as the most important ruling of his career. It was the first Supreme Court ruling to broaden the concept of procedural due process and impacted millions of people by revolutionizing the system for terminating public assistance. It also provided the Court with a basis for future opinions weighing government interests against the interests of an individual. Sources Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).Greenhouse, Linda. â€Å"New Look at an Obscure Ruling, 20 Years Later.†Ã‚  The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 May 1990, www.nytimes.com/1990/05/11/us/law-new-look-at-an-obscure-ruling-20-years-later.html.

Grapes of Wrath Summary Free Essays

The Grapes Of Wrath Gena Rodriguez Student in Crime Films The Grapes Of Wrath The Grapes Of Wrath was a book that followed the Joad family on their journey from their deserted farm in Oklahoma to the riches of California, as their farms were destroyed in Oklahoma. They took few possessions with them on their journey, however they had eachother. They even picked up others along the way, all in hopes of a vision of getting their lives on track in California. We will write a custom essay sample on Grapes of Wrath Summary or any similar topic only for you Order Now Their journey was not easy as they had trouble with their vehicle, they lost family members and friends to death, and even heard several rumors of a depleted job market. The salesmen and pawnbrokers took full advantage of them as they knew that the families were in no position to deny payments for their goods. The family continued to stay together and remained positive as they looked forward to what was to come. Upon arrival in California, the Joads were met with much hostility. The camps were overcrowded and full of starving migrants, who were often nasty to each other. The locals were fearful and angry at the flood of newcomers, and label the migrants as â€Å"Okies. Work is almost impossible to find or pays such a meager wage that a family’s full day of work cannot buy a decent meal. Farmers resent the droves of Okies from flooding the state, as hungry and impoverished people are a danger. They are viewed as vagrants and thieves. The farmers, police and landowners were in a position of power, and it seems that they only seek to take advantage of those below them. They did not falter even when they were in a position to save a family, they refused to give up their wealth. The farmers used the police to their advantage, as they would have deputies destroy secret gardens, so that the camps people would not have extra food. The police labeled labor organizers as â€Å"red† and had them removed from camps for trying to organize and get decent wages and contracts for workers. Those labeled as â€Å"red† were placed on a blacklist and could not get work. The farmers’ association even tried to organize a riot, which they would pay certain â€Å"Okies† to start trouble, get the organizers put in jail and have the camp shut down. The migrants, got word of this and prevented it. Police seemed to be uncaring, rude, and cold mannered. They were abusive and corrupt. Many of the people in the camps felt they had to pretend to be incoherent and ramble, act â€Å"bull simple†, so that the police viewed them as unthreatening and idiots. Many of the â€Å"Okies† seemed to lack respect for the police due to their degrading treatment. An example would be Ma Joad chasing the police officer with a skillet. The police also acted recklessly such as in the shooting of Floyd Knowles. The police shot at him, but struck another woman in the crowd. Floyd Knowles was being arrested for trying to organize a contract and wages for workers, however the farmer became angry and informed the police. Knowles was later arrested on a bogus charge. The portrayal of police in this book can easily be compared to that of current police portrayals in movies and television shows. The times have changed to where people want to see the bad cop win or more action from police. The book portrays police as almost heartless and insincere, and corrupt. It portrays the police officer not as someone you go to, but someone you stay away from, which is very much in line with current trends in media. There are so many different types of police officers portrayed. Certain fictional dramas have come to show police officers as being corrupt and taking advantage of the power they hold but in my opinion this is not just fictional but rather a reality. This typed is definitely apparent in the book and the show â€Å"Underbelly†. There are some shows which portray police as masculine, overly intelligent, fit, aggressive, action packed, and always willing to shoot at suspects. The reality is that the public want to see these kinds of police officers. All of the excitement and glamour of being a police officer is what everyone wants to watch. A show where police are filling out forms and writing up boring reports just won’t cut it. The glamourized types of officers are portrayed in shows like â€Å"Hawaii 5 0† and â€Å"NYPD†, whereas the more realistic approach to policing is portrayed in shows like â€Å"First 48† and â€Å"cops†. References The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck How to cite Grapes of Wrath Summary, Papers