Read the excerpts from "Take the Tortillas Out of Your Poetry" and "Speaking Arabic."
My friend had concluded that if he took his language and culture out of his poetry, he stood a better chance of
receiving a fellowship. He took out his native language, the poetic patois of our reality, the rich mixture of Spanish,
English, pachuco and street talk which we know so well. In other words, he took the tortillas out of his poetry, which
is to say he took the soul out of his poetry.
At a neighborhood fair in Texas, somewhere between the German Oom-pah Sausage Stand and the Mexican Gorditas
booth, I overheard a young man say to his friend, "I wish I had a heritage. Sometimes I feel so lonely for one." And
the tall American trees were dangling their thick branches right down over his head.
Which best states how the structures of the excerpts differ?
Anaya structures his excerpt as an anecdote, while Nye structures her excerpt as a rhetorical appeal
Anaya structures his excerpt as an analysis, while Nye structures her excerpt as an observation.
Anaya structures his excerpt as an observation, while Nye structures her excerpt as an analysis
Anaya structures his excerpt as a rhetorical appeal, while Nye structures her excerpt as an anecdote.

yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

it is yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

hope this

the correct answer is d. in john paston's letter written friday, 14, 1476, he expresses his fear that he may have to go to war.

indeed, although the black death was ravaging europe, the pastons were relatively safe from it due to their social status as they were part of the landed gentry. it is clear that the vast majority of the victims of the pandemic were the poor. the reason why he is weary of having to go to war is because at the particular time england was also devastated by the war of the roses and paston, being a courtesan was inevitably involved.

he uses the metaphor autumn.

the answer is b i think