My uncle is blind. I don't think he sees nothing at all, though. I don't think that's how blindness necessarily works. I think he sees lights and shapes but not too much that he can really make practical use of. I gather, and mine is a very limited understanding, that blindness is a spectrum.
You might hope that my uncle's experience of blindness - I love him very much, and despite the geographical distance I think we are close - would make me very aware of my own privilege of sight. But of course I largely take it for granted. I am long-sighted, so I often complain about newsprint and how small everything is on my monitor, and multiple sclerosis meant that I had a period of double vision a few years back which lasted for several weeks and was extremely odd and unsettling. But then it went away, thankfully, and since then I haven't really given my own sight much thought. More fool me, obviously, because sight is fascinating.
And the thing that has finally made me realise this is VR. PSVR to be more precise. I have spent the last few months with things like Tetris Effect and Déraciné, the last of which is a sort of experimental adventure game from the people behind Dark Souls and Bloodborne. I say experimental - in fact it's a very traditional, even slightly boring adventure game. You explore, you collect items and you think of ways that they might be useful for advancing the scenarios you find yourself in. But what I've realised is that in the muddle of all these boring tasks, I look at things more. I look closely at the things in my inventory - dead flowers, ornate keys, a dead mouse at one point - and I look more intently at the surroundings in which I find myself. Déraciné is set in a Victorian school or orphanage or some such. Many games take you to places like this, and yet here I stare in wonder at everything I see: the chalk boards, the prints of birds, the rugs that have lumps and folds in them, the stacks of books on counters and the brass handles on the wooden doors.
Déraciné plays into this to a certain extent. It's often a sort of pseudo-hidden object game, in that way that a lot of adventure games are. It has a crouch button, which is purely there to allow you to see under things, or to view scenes at floor level, to catch objects and details you might otherwise have missed. As a result, it's a game in which all the characters have quite carefully modelled footwear, and in which the warp and weft of the floorboards is attended to with a surprising degree of artistry. But beyond all that, I stare at Déraciné in much the same way I stare at all the VR games I've played. They place a huge premium on the act of seeing. For sighted people like myself, they are a chance to get a fresh understanding of how interesting it is to be able to see.
I've realised this, I think, because at the same time as I've been playing Déraciné, I've been finishing up The Mind's Eye, by Oliver Sacks. It's a selection of case histories, all of which hinge on the impact of neurological disease on vision - the mechanics of vision and the processing of visual information. It is, as is always the case with Sacks, an absolute wonder of a book - caring and probing and fascinating, a deep examination of the human condition and the ways in which neurological patients make a rich life for themselves in the face of illness. I was particularly struck by Sacks' own story of his own loss of stereoscopic vision when cancer took the sight in one of his eyes. Ever since reading this piece, I've been walking around and experimenting, closing one eye and then the other and trying to understand whether or not I'm one of those people who has sight in both eyes but still struggles to see in three dimensions.
Out in the real world, walking about in Brighton and testing one eye and then the other and then both on the trees, statues, fences and buses and whatnot I pass every day, I have found it surprisingly difficult to tell whether I have stereoscopic vision - or rather I struggle to see what changes, or to detect any flattening of the world around me, when I close one eye. But then I loaded up Déraciné the other day and the whole place was a sudden riot of stereoscopy. The world around me quickly settled in at various depths, and I was left marvelling at the way one classroom is visible in the distance through a dusty window, or the way in which one of the game's main characters suddenly leans towards me during a cut-scene, moving into what I would otherwise perceive as my own space.
It was the same with all the other VR games I've played I think: there's always a period of being mesmerised by the surroundings. The way the robot scampers up and over me in Astro Bot: Rescue Mission, or the manner in which Lovecraftian horrors - and they really are Lovecraftian for once - lurch out of the cold in Edge of Nowhere. But this period of being mesmerised doesn't really seem to end. The moment you put a headset over your eyes, you are telling yourself that your eyes are in for something very special, I think. And then there's the fact that the private theatre darkness of VR puts the rest of the world out of reach. Vision becomes a feature - a special effect. It becomes the main event. And at the same time, my own vision is revealed as the marvel that it always has been. I get to see the privilege that is being able to see.


WINNETKA >> An armed man who was shot and killed by Los Angeles police on Saturday, Dec. 30 in Winnetka has been identified, authorities said.
He is 39-year-old Oscar Sandoval, Investigator Rudy Molano of the Los Angeles County Department of Medical Examiner-Coroner said Sunday. An autopsy was pending.
The shooting happened after officers responded to an assault-with-deadly-weapon and shots-fired radio call at about 7:20 p.m. in the 6900 block of Oakdale Avenue, said Los Angeles Police Department Officer Irma Mota.
When officers from the Topanga Division arrived, they heard shots being fired and saw the suspect leave the location.
"He was holding a gun and that's when an officer-involved shooting occurred," Mota said.
She did not elaborate on why police shot the man.
LAPD officials said via Twitter Saturday night that officers were responding to a "family dispute" with reports of the suspect possibly armed with a handgun.
The handgun was recovered at the scene, according to authorities.
An officer was taken to a hospital with a non-threatening injury, according to LAPD. The officer did not sustain a gunshot wound.
The suspect was taken to a hospital and pronounced dead, Mota said.
On Sunday, an LAPD vehicle was parked outside the street as two patrol officers kept watch on the house until family members arrived.
More than half a dozen people, some of whom said they knew the man who was shot, stood outside staring at the house. Family members embraced at the door of a home where the suspect lived.
Neighbor Jose Rojo said he was watching TV and having a beer at home when he first heard a loud pop. But he assumed it was fireworks, which he said are common in the neighborhood year around.
Rojo then heard voices outside and heard an officer yell "shots fired, shots fired" and a voice telling a woman to get down or move. He then heard a second shot and then a third shot, and then the sound of sirens wailing.
Shortly afterward, he heard a barrage of fire of up to eight shots, he said.
The barrage of gunfire was followed by an "eerie silence" except for the sound of a police helicopter hovering above as lights shone into his neighbor's house and his own backyard.
Rojo said he was surprised to learn that Sandoval, whom he described as a quiet father, had been shot dead.
An officer was transported to a local hospital with a non-life-threatening injury that occurred during their response to the incident (NOT a gunshot wound). The suspect was pronounced dead at scene. More details as they become available. Reminder, information is preliminary.
Detectives from Force Investigation Division (FID) are at the scene of the OIS and have begun their investigation. PIO will be providing details as they become available. Reminder all information provided up to this point is preliminarily.
Saturday's police shooting comes one week after a 32-year-old Canoga Park man, whom police described as a battery suspect armed with a metal bar, was shot dead by police. Police had responded to a 911 call from someone at the home after a family dispute had turned violent.
On Sunday, Dec. 31, another police shooting occurred; this time, in Koreatown in LAPD's Olympic Division. Officers responded to a call of a man armed with a gun causing a disturbance in the area of Western Avenue north of 9th Street, according to LAPD Headquarters. The call came in at about 12:10 a.m., Mota said.
The man was struck and taken to a local hospital with a non-life-threatening injury, LAPD stated.
Detectives were still evaluating the crime scene and evidence to determine "whether it's a real handgun or a replica," the agency stated, adding all information is preliminary.


Smartly located in the middle of Chelsea, this family home has a smart interior to match. Inside, you'll come first to the dining room, which has a table for five and leads into the sea-green kitchen. Beneath that there's a cinema room (where there's a cosy corner sofa) and an adjoining kitchenette, which gives onto a pretty walled garden with space to dine. Also on this level is the secluded third bedroom, plus a bathroom.
Upstairs, the floral-papered office is first along, and just above that there's the sitting room – decorated in blue, gold and cream, with many plump seats and striking landscape paintings. Next there's the main bathroom, then the honey-coloured master bedroom above, with its super king-size bed, a fireplace and the mosaic-tiled ensuite. Finally, heading up past the decked terrace, you'll come to the second bedroom, which has checked wallpaper and two light-blue single beds.
1 Super king bed, 1 King bed, 2 Single bed.
The green marble bathroom on the 4th level, is now a cream-tiled wet room. We'll be taking photographs soon.
The third bedroom and second bathroom are on the lower ground floor.


text:
Tag Archives: policy transfer
Taking lessons from policy theory into practice: 3 examples
Notes for ANZSOG/ ANU Crawford School/ UNSW Canberra workshop. Powerpoint here. The recording of the lecture (skip to 2m30) and Q&A is here (right click to download mp3 or dropbox link):
https://paulcairney.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/paul-cairney-22-october-2018-anu.mp3
The context for this workshop is the idea that policy theories could be more helpful to policymakers/ practitioners if we could all communicate more effectively with each other. Academics draw general and relatively abstract conclusions from multiple cases. Practitioners draw very similar conclusions from rich descriptions of direct experience in a smaller number of cases. How can we bring together their insights and use a language that we all understand? Or, more ambitiously, how can we use policy theory-based insights to inform the early career development training that civil servants and researchers receive?
The first step is to translate policy theories into a non-technical language by trying to speak with an audience beyond our immediate peers (see for example Practical Lessons from Policy Theories).
However, translation is not enough. A second crucial step is to consider how policymakers and practitioners are likely to make sense of theoretical insights when they apply them to particular aims or responsibilities. For example:
Central government policymakers may accept the descriptive accuracy of policy theories emphasising limited central control, but not the recommendation that they should let go, share power, and describe their limits to the public.
Scientists may accept key limitations to 'evidence based policymaking' but reject the idea that they should respond by becoming better storytellers or more manipulative operators.
Researchers and practitioners struggle to resolve hard choices when combining evidence and 'coproduction' while 'scaling up' policy interventions. Evidence choice is political choice. Can we do more than merely encourage people to accept this point?
I discuss these examples below because they are closest to my heart (especially example 1). Note throughout that I am presenting one interpretation about: (1) the most promising insights, and (2) their implications for practice. Other interpretations of the literature and its implications are available. They are just a bit harder to find.
Example 1: the policy cycle endures despite its descriptive inaccuracy
The policy cycle does not describe and explain the policy process well:
If we insist on keeping the cycle metaphor, it is more accurate to see the process as a huge set of policy cycles that connect with each other in messy and unpredictable ways.
The cycle approach also links strongly to the idea of 'comprehensive rationality' in which a small group of policymakers and analysts are in full possession of the facts and full control of the policy process. They carry out their aims through a series of stages.
Policy theories provide more descriptive and explanatory usefulness. Their insights include:
Limited choice. Policymakers inherit organisations, rules, and choices. Most 'new' choice is a revision of the old.
Limited attention. Policymakers must ignore almost all of the policy problems for which they are formally responsible. They pay attention to some, and delegate most responsibility to civil servants. Bureaucrats rely on other actors for information and advice, and they build relationships on trust and information exchange.
Limited central control. Policy may appear to be made at the 'top' or in the 'centre', but in practice policymaking responsibility is spread across many levels and types of government (many 'centres'). 'Street level' actors make policy as they deliver. Policy outcomes appear to 'emerge' locally despite central government attempts to control their fate.
Limited policy change. Most policy change is minor, made and influenced by actors who interpret new evidence through the lens of their beliefs. Well-established beliefs limit the opportunities of new solutions. Governments tend to rely on trial-and-error, based on previous agreements, rather than radical policy change based on a new agenda. New solutions succeed only during brief and infrequent windows of opportunity.
However, the cycle metaphor endures because:
It provides a simple model of policymaking with stages that map onto important policymaking functions.
It provides a way to project policymaking to the public. You know how we make policy, and that we are in charge, so you know who to hold to account.
In that context, we may want to be pragmatic about our advice:
One option is via complexity theory, in which scholars generally encourage policymakers to accept and describe their limits:
Accept routine error, reduce short-term performance management, engage more in trial and error, and 'let go' to allow local actors the flexibility to adapt and respond to their context.
However, would a government in the Westminster tradition really embrace this advice? No. They need to balance (a) pragmatic policymaking, and (b) an image of governing competence.
Another option is to try to help improve an existing approach.
Koski and Workman build on PET to recommend ways to process information more effectively.
Studies built on MSA tend to focus on 'entrepreneurs' having a technically and politically feasible solution ready for the next window of opportunity.
Sanderson describes the skills required for 'intelligent policymaking'.
I sum up these approaches in 'How Can Policy Theory Have an Impact on Policy Making?' Teaching Public Administration, 33, 1, 22-39
Further reading (blog posts):
The language of complexity does not mix well with the language of Westminster-style accountability
Making Sense of Policymaking: why it's always someone else's fault and nothing ever changes
Two stories of British politics: the Westminster model versus Complex Government
Example 2: how to deal with a lack of 'evidence based policymaking'
I used to read many papers on tobacco policy, with the same basic message: we have the evidence of tobacco harm, and evidence of which solutions work, but there is an evidence-policy gap caused by too-powerful tobacco companies, low political will, and pathological policymaking. These accounts are not informed by theories of policymaking.
I then read Oliver et al's paper on the lack of policy theory in health/ environmental scholarship on the 'barriers' to the use of evidence in policy. Very few articles rely on policy concepts, and most of the few rely on the policy cycle. This lack of policy theory is clear in their description of possible solutions – better communication, networking, timing, and more science literacy in government – which does not describe well the need to respond to policymaker psychology and a complex policymaking environment.
So, I wrote The Politics of Evidence-Based Policymaking and one zillion blog posts to help identify the ways in which policy theories could help explain the relationship between evidence and policy.
Since then, the highest demand to speak about the book has come from government/ public servant, NGO, and scientific audiences outside my discipline. The feedback is generally that: (a) the book's description sums up their experience of engagement with the policy process, and (b) maybe it opens up discussion about how to engage more effectively.
But how exactly do we turn empirical descriptions of policymaking into practical advice?
For example, scientist/ researcher audiences want to know the answer to a question like: Why don't policymakers listen to your evidence? and so I focus on three conversation starters:
they have a broader view on what counts as good evidence (see ANZSOG description)
they have to ignore almost all information (a nice way into bounded rationality and policymaker psychology)
they do not understand or control the process in which they seek to use evidence (a way into 'the policy process')
We can then consider many possible responses in the sequel What can you do when policymakers ignore your evidence?
'How to do it' advice. I compare tips for individuals (from experienced practitioners) with tips based on policy concepts. They are quite similar-looking tips – e.g. find out where the action is, learn the rules, tell good stories, engage allies, seek windows of opportunity – but I describe mine as 5 impossible tasks!
Organisational reform. I describe work with the European Commission Joint Research Centre to identify 8 skills or functions of an organisation bringing together the supply/demand of knowledge.
Ethical dilemmas. I use key policy theories to ask people how far they want to go to privilege evidence in policy. It's fun to talk about these things with the type of scientist who sees any form of storytelling as manipulation.
Is Evidence-Based Policymaking the same as good policymaking?
A 5-step strategy to make evidence count
Political science improves our understanding of evidence-based policymaking, but does it produce better advice?
Principles of science advice to government: key problems and feasible solutions
Example 3: how to encourage realistic evidence-informed policy transfer
This focus on EBPM is useful context for discussions of 'policy learning' and 'policy transfer', and it was the focus of my ANZOG talk entitled (rather ambitiously) 'teaching evidence-based policy to fly'.
I've taken a personal interest in this one because I'm part of a project – called IMAJINE – in which we have to combine academic theory and practical responses. We are trying to share policy solutions across Europe rather than explain why few people share them!
For me, the context is potentially overwhelming:
Policy learning is a political process, and expert-driven learning is one of many possibilities, alongside dialogue, bargaining, and hierarchical models.
Indeed, researchers often do badly because they don't learn how to deal with the politics.
Policy transfer can be maximal or minimal, and driven voluntarily or via coercion. A policy solution, when 'imported', can be mimicked, translated or transformed.
When transfer is voluntary, receptivity to new solutions is more important than their supply.
There are very different 'evidence-based' models on how to 'scale up' policy success.
So, when we start to focus on sharing lessons, we will have three things to discover:
What is the evidence for success, and from where does it come? Governments often project success without backing it up.
What story do policymakers tell about the problem they are trying to solve, the solutions they produced, and why? Two different governments may be framing and trying to solve the same problem in very different ways.
Was the policy introduced in a comparable policymaking system? People tend to focus on political system comparability (e.g. is it unitary or federal?), but I think the key is in policymaking system comparability (e.g. what are the rules and dominant ideas?).
To be honest, when one of our external assessors asked me how well I thought I would do, we both smiled because the answer may be 'not very'. In other words, the most practical lesson may be the hardest to take, although I find it comforting: the literature suggests that policymakers might ignore you for 20 years then suddenly become very (but briefly) interested in your work.
The slides are a bit wonky because I combined my old ppt to the Scottish Government with a new one for UNSW Paul Cairney ANU Policy practical 22 October 2018
I wanted to compare how I describe things to (1) civil servants (2) practitioners/ researcher (3) me, but who has the time/ desire to listen to 3 powerpoints in one go? If the answer is you, let me know and we'll set up a Zoom call.
Filed under agenda setting, Evidence Based Policymaking (EBPM), IMAJINE, Policy learning and transfer
Tagged as complexity theory, evidence, evidence and policy, evidence informed policymaking, evidence-based policymaking, facts, good evidence, Policy, policy analysis, policy process, Policy studies, policy theory, policy transfer, practical lessons from policy theory, punctuated equilibrium theory, science, Theory
Teaching evidence based policy to fly: how to deal with the politics of policy learning and transfer
This post provides (a generous amount of) background for my ANZSOG talk Teaching evidence based policy to fly: transferring sound policies across the world.
The event's description sums up key conclusions in the literature on policy learning and policy transfer:
technology and 'entrepreneurs' help ideas spread internationally, and domestic policymakers can use them to be more informed about global policy innovation, but
there can be major unintended consequences to importing ideas, such as the adoption of policy solutions with poorly-evidenced success, or a broader sense of failed transportation caused by factors such as a poor fit between the aims of the exporter/importer.
In this post, I connect these conclusions to broader themes in policy studies, which suggest that:
policy learning and policy transfer are political processes, not 'rational' or technical searches for information
the use of evidence to spread policy innovation requires two interconnected choices: what counts as good evidence, and what role central governments should play.
the following '11 question guide' to evidence based policy transfer serves more as a way to reflect than a blueprint for action.
As usual, I suggest that we focus less on how we think we'd like to do it, and more on how people actually do it.
Policy transfer describes the use of evidence about policy in one political system to help develop policy in another. Taken at face value, it sounds like a great idea: why would a government try to reinvent the wheel when another government has shown how to do it?
Therefore, wouldn't it be nice if I turned up to the lecture, equipped with a 'blueprint' for 'evidence based' policy transfer, and declared how to do it in a series of realistic and straightforward steps? Unfortunately, there are three main obstacles:
'Evidence based' is a highly misleading description of the use of information in policy.
To transfer a policy blueprint completely, in this manner, would require all places and contexts to be the same, and for the policy process to be technocratic and apolitical.
There are general academic guides on how to learn lessons from others systematically – such as Richard Rose's 'practical guide' – but most academic work on learning and transfer does not suggest that policymakers follow this kind of advice.
Instead, policy learning is a political process – involving the exercise of power to determine what and how to learn – and it is difficult to separate policy transfer from the wider use of evidence and ideas in policy processes.
Let's take each of these points in turn, before reflecting on their implications for any X-step guide:
3 reasons why 'evidence based' does not describe policymaking
In a series of ANZSOG talks on 'evidence based policymaking' (EBPM), I describe three main factors, all of which are broadly relevant to transfer:
There are many forms of policy-relevant evidence and few policymakers adhere to a strict 'hierarchy' of knowledge.
Therefore, it is unclear how one government can, or should, generate evidence of another government's policy success.
Policymakers must find ways to ignore most evidence – such as by combining 'rational' and 'irrational' cognitive shortcuts – to be able to act quickly.
The generation of policy transfer lessons is a highly political process in which actors adapt to this need to prioritise information while competing with each other. They exercise power to: prioritise some information and downplay the rest, define the nature of the policy problem, and evaluate the success of another government's solutions. There is a strong possibility that policymakers will import policy solutions without knowing if, and why, they were successful.
They do not control the policy process in which they engage.
We should not treat 'policy transfer' as separate from the policy process in which policymakers and influencers engage. Rather, the evidence of international experience competes with many other sources of ideas and evidence within a complex policymaking system.
The literature on 'policy learning' tells a similar story
Studies of the use of evaluation evidence (perhaps to answer the question: was this policy successful?) have long described policymakers using the research process for many different purposes, from short term problem-solving and long-term enlightenment, to putting off decisions or using evidence cynically to support an existing policy.
We should therefore reject the temptation to (a) equate 'policy learning' with a simplistic process that we might associate with teachers transmitting facts to children, or (b) assume that adults simply change their beliefs when faced with new evidence. Rather, Dunlop and Radaelli describe policy learning as a political process in the following ways:
1.It is collective and rule-bound
Individuals combine cognition and emotion to process information, in organisations with rules that influence their motive and ability to learn, and in wider systems, in which many actors cooperate and compete to establish the rules of evidence gathering and analysis, or policymaking environments that constrain or facilitate their action.
2.'Evidence based' is one of several types of policy learning
Epistemic. Primarily by scientific experts transmitting knowledge to policymakers.
Reflection. Open dialogue to incorporate diverse forms of knowledge and encourage cooperation.
Bargaining. Actors learn how to cooperate and compete effectively.
Hierarchy. Actors with authority learn how to impose their aims; others learn the limits to their discretion.
3.The process can be 'dysfunctional': driven by groupthink, limited analysis, and learning how to dominate policymaking, not improve policy.
Their analysis can produce relevant take-home points such as:
Experts will be ineffective if they assume that policy learning is epistemic. The assumption will leave them ill-prepared to deal with bargaining.
There is more than one legitimate way to learn, such as via deliberative processes that incorporate more perspectives and forms of knowledge.
What does the literature on transfer tell us?
'Policy transfer' can describe a spectrum of activity:
driven voluntarily, by a desire to learn from the story of another government's policy's success. In such cases, importers use shortcuts to learning, such as by restricting their search to systems with which they have something in common (such as geography or ideology), learning via intermediaries such as 'entrepreneurs', or limiting their searches for evidence of success.
driven by various forms of pressure, including encouragement by central (or supranational) governments, international norms or agreements, 'spillover' effects causing one system to respond to innovation by another, or demands by businesses to minimise the cost of doing business.
In that context, some of the literature focuses on warning against unsuccessful policy transfer caused by factors such as:
Failing to generate or use enough evidence on what made the initial policy successful
Failing to adapt that policy to local circumstances
Failing to back policy change with sufficient resources
However, other studies highlight some major qualifications:
If the process is about using ideas about one system to inform another, our attention may shift from 'transfer' to 'translation' or 'transformation', and the idea of 'successful transfer' makes less sense
Transfer success is not the same as implementation success, which depends on a wider range of factors
Nor is it the same as 'policy success', which can be assessed by a mix of questions to reflect political reality: did it make the government more re-electable, was the process of change relatively manageable, and did it produce intended outcomes?
The use of evidence to spread policy innovation requires a combination of profound political and governance choices
When encouraging policy diffusion within a political system, choices about: (a) what counts as 'good' evidence of policy success have a major connection to (b) what counts as good governance.
For example, consider these ideal-types or models in table 1:
In one scenario, we begin by relying primarily on RCT evidence (multiple international trials) and import a relatively fixed model, to ensure 'fidelity' to a proven intervention and allow us to measure its effect in a new context. This choice of good evidence limits the ability of subnational policymakers to adapt policy to local contexts.
In another scenario, we begin by relying primary on governance principles, such as to respect local discretion as well as incorporate practitioner and user experience as important knowledge claims. The choice of governance model relates closely to a less narrow sense of what counts as good evidence, but also a more limited ability to evaluate policy success scientifically.
In other words, the political choice to privilege some forms of evidence is difficult to separate from another political choice to privilege the role of one form of government.
Telling a policy transfer story: 11 questions to encourage successful evidence based policy transfer
In that context, these steps to evidence-informed policy transfer serve more to encourage reflection than provide a blueprint for action. I accept that 11 is less catchy than 10.
What problem did policymakers say they were trying to solve, and why?
What solution(s) did they produce?
Points 1-3 represent the classic and necessary questions from policy studies: (1) 'what is policy?' (2) 'how much did policy change?' and (3) why? Until we have a good answer, we do not know how to draw comparable lessons. Learning from another government's policy choices is no substitute for learning from more meaningful policy change.
4. Was the project introduced in a country or region which is sufficiently comparable? Comparability can relate to the size and type of country, the nature of the problem, the aims of the borrowing/ lending government and their measures of success.
5. Was it introduced nationwide, or in a region which is sufficiently representative of the national experience (it is not an outlier)?
6. How do we account for the role of scale, and the different cultures and expectations in each policy field?
Points 4-6 inform initial background discussions of case study reports. We need to focus on comparability when describing the context in which the original policy developed. It is not enough to state that two political systems are different. We need to identify the relevance and implications of the differences, from another government's definition of the problem to the logistics of their task.
7. Has the project been evaluated independently, subject to peer review and/ or using measures deemed acceptable to the government?
8. Has the evaluation been of a sufficient period in proportion to the expected outcomes?
9. Are we confident that this project has been evaluated the most favourably – i.e. that our search for relevant lessons has been systematic, based on recognisable criteria (rather than reputations)?
10. Are we identifying 'Good practice' based on positive experience, 'Promising approaches' based on positive but unsystematic findings, 'Research–based' or based on 'sound theory informed by a growing body of empirical research', or 'Evidence–based', when 'the programme or practice has been rigorously evaluated and has consistently been shown to work'?
Points 7-10 raise issues about the relationships between (a) what evidence we should use to evaluate success or potential, and (b) how long we should wait to declare success.
11. What will be the relationship between evidence and governance?
Should we identify the same basic model and transfer it uniformly, tell a qualitative story about the model and invite people to adapt it, or focus pragmatically on an eclectic range of evidential sources and focus on the training of the actors who will implement policy?
Information technology has allowed us to gather a huge amount of policy-relevant information across the globe. However, it has not solved the limitations we face in defining policy problems clearly, gathering evidence on policy solutions systematically, and generating international lessons that we can use to inform domestic policy processes.
This rise in available evidence is not a substitute for policy analysis and political choice. These choices range from how to adjudicate between competing policy preference, to how to define good evidence and good government. A lack of attention to these wider questions helps explain why – at least from some perspectives – policy transfer seems to fail.
Paul Cairney Auckland Policy Transfer 12.10.18
Filed under Evidence Based Policymaking (EBPM), Policy learning and transfer
Tagged as defining evidence, evidence and policy, evidence informed policymaking, evidence-based policymaking, good evidence, good policymaking, hierarchy of evidence, learning, lesson-drawing, policy analysis, policy change, policy design, policy learning, policy process, Policy studies, policy transfer
There is no blueprint for evidence-based policy, so what do you do?
In my speech to COPOLAD I began by stating that, although we talk about our hopes for evidence-based policy and policymaking (EBP and EBPM), we don't really know what it is.
I also argued that EBPM is not like our image of evidence-based medicine (EBM), in which there is a clear idea of: (a) which methods/ evidence counts, and (b) the main aim, to replace bad interventions with good.
In other words, in EBPM there is no blueprint for action, either in the abstract or in specific cases of learning from good practice.
To me, this point is underappreciated in the study of EBPM: we identify the politics of EBPM, to highlight the pathologies of/ 'irrational' side to policymaking, but we don't appreciate the more humdrum limits to EBPM even when the political process is healthy and policymakers are fully committed to something more 'rational'.
Examples from best practice
The examples from our next panel session* demonstrated these limitations to EBPM very well.
The panel contained four examples of impressive policy developments with the potential to outline good practice on the application of public health and harm reduction approaches to drugs policy (including the much-praised Portuguese model).
However, it quickly became apparent that no country-level experience translated into a blueprint for action, for some of the following reasons:
It is not always clear what problems policymakers have been trying to solve.
It is not always clear how their solutions, in this case, interact with all other relevant policy solutions in related fields.
It is difficult to demonstrate clear evidence of success, either before or after the introduction of policies. Instead, most policies are built on initial deductions from relevant evidence, followed by trial-and-error and some evaluations.
In other words, we note routinely the high-level political obstacles to policy emulation, but these examples demonstrate the problems that would still exist even if those initial obstacles were overcome.
A key solution is easier said than done: if providing lessons to others, describe it systematically, in a form that describes the steps to take to turn this model into action (and in a form that we can compare with other experiences). To that end, providers of lessons might note:
The problem they were trying to solve (and how they framed it to generate attention, support, and action, within their political systems)
The detailed nature of the solution they selected (and the conditions under which it became possible to select that intervention)
The evidence they used to guide their initial policies (and how they gathered it)
The evidence they collected to monitor the delivery of the intervention, evaluate its impact (was it successful?), and identify cause and effect (why was it successful?)
Realistically this is when the process least resembles (the ideal of) EBM because few evaluations of success will be based on a randomised control trial or some equivalent (and other policymakers may not draw primarily on RCT evidence even when it exists).
Instead, as with much harm reduction and prevention policy, a lot of the justification for success will be based on a counterfactual (what would have happened if we did not intervene?), which is itself based on:
(a) the belief that our object of policy is a complex environment containing many 'wicked problems', in which the effects of one intervention cannot be separated easily from that of another (which makes it difficult, and perhaps even inappropriate, to rely on RCTs)
(b) an assessment of the unintended consequence of previous (generally more punitive) policies.
So, the first step to 'evidence-based policymaking' is to make a commitment to it. The second is to work out what it is. The third is to do it in a systematic way that allows others to learn from your experience.
The latter may be more political than it looks: few countries (or, at least, the people seeking re-election within them) will want to tell the rest of the world: we innovated and we don't think it worked.
*I also discuss this problem of evidence-based best practice within single countries
Filed under Evidence Based Policymaking (EBPM), Prevention policy, Public health, public policy, tobacco policy
Tagged as defining evidence, ebm, EBPM, evidence, Evidence-based medicine, evidence-based policymaking, hierarchy of evidence, policy learning, policy transfer
The politics of evidence-based best practice: 4 messages
Well, it's really a set of messages, geared towards slightly different audiences, and summed up by this table:
This academic journal article (in Evidence and Policy) highlights the dilemmas faced by policymakers when they have to make two choices at once, to decide: (1) what is the best evidence, and (2) how strongly they should insist that local policymakers use it. It uses the case study of the 'Scottish Approach' to show that it often seems to favour one approach ('approach 3') but actually maintains three approaches. What interests me is the extent to which each approach contradicts the other. We might then consider the cause: is it an explicit decision to 'let a thousand flowers bloom' or an unintended outcome of complex government?
I explore some of the scientific issues in more depth in posts which explore: the political significance of the family nurse partnership (as a symbol of the value of randomised control trials in government), and the assumptions we make about levels of control in the use of RCTs in policy.
For local governments, I outline three ways to gather and use evidence of best practice (for example, on interventions to support prevention policy).
For students and fans of policy theory, I show the links between the use of evidence and policy transfer.
Further reading (links):
My academic articles on these topics
The Politics of Evidence Based Policymaking
Key policy theories and concepts in 1000 words
Filed under 1000 words, ESRC Scottish Centre for Constitutional Change, Evidence Based Policymaking (EBPM), Prevention policy, Scottish politics, UK politics and policy
Tagged as early intervention, EBP, EBPM, Evaluation, evidence, Evidence-based medicine, evidence-based policymaking, Policy, policy diffusion, Policy studies, policy success, policy transfer, policymaking, Politics of Scotland, Public health, public policy
Policy Concepts in 1000 Words: the intersection between evidence and policy transfer
https://paulcairney.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/podcast-ebpm-transfer-10-2-16.mp3 (podcast download)
We can generate new insights on policymaking by connecting the dots between many separate concepts. However, don't underestimate some major obstacles or how hard these dot-connecting exercises are to understand. They may seem clear in your head, but describing them (and getting people to go along with your description) is another matter. You need to set out these links clearly and in a set of logical steps. I give one example – of the links between evidence and policy transfer – which I have been struggling with for some time.
In this post, I combine three concepts – policy transfer, bounded rationality, and 'evidence-based policymaking' – to identify the major dilemmas faced by central government policymakers when they use evidence to identify a successful policy solution and consider how to import it and 'scale it up' within their jurisdiction. For example, do they use randomised control trials (RCTs) to establish the effectiveness of interventions and require uniform national delivery (to ensure the correct 'dosage'), or tell stories of good practice and invite people to learn and adapt to local circumstances? I use these examples to demonstrate that our judgement of good evidence influences our judgement on the mode of policy transfer.
Insights from each concept
From studies of policy transfer, we know that central governments (a) import policies from other countries and/ or (b) encourage the spread ('diffusion') of successful policies which originated in regions within their country: but how do they use evidence to identify success and decide how to deliver programs?
From studies of 'evidence-based policymaking' (EBPM), we know that providers of scientific evidence identify an 'evidence-policy gap' in which policymakers ignore the evidence of a problem and/ or do not select the best evidence-based solution: but can policymakers simply identify the 'best' evidence and 'roll-out' the 'best' evidence-based solutions?
From studies of bounded rationality and the policy cycle (compared with alternative theories, such as multiple streams analysis or the advocacy coalition framework), we know that it is unrealistic to think that a policymaker at the heart of government can simply identify then select a perfect solution, click their fingers, and see it carried out. This limitation is more pronounced when we identify multi-level governance, or the diffusion of policymaking power across many levels and types of government. Even if they were not limited by bounded rationality, they would still face: (a) practical limits to their control of the policy process, and (b) a normative dilemma about how far you should seek to control subnational policymaking to ensure the delivery of policy solutions.
The evidence-based policy transfer dilemma
If we combine these insights we can identify a major policy transfer dilemma for central government policymakers:
If subject to bounded rationality, they need to use short cuts to identify (what they perceive to be) the best sources of evidence on the policy problem and its solution.
At the same time, they need to determine if there is convincing evidence of success elsewhere, to allow them to: (a) import policy from another country, and/ or (b) 'scale up' a solution that seems to be successful in one of its regions.
Then they need to decide how to 'spread success', either by (a) ensuring that the best policy is adopted by all regions within its jurisdiction, or (b) accepting that their role in policy transfer is limited: they identify 'best practice' and merely encourage subnational governments to adopt particular policies.
Note how closely connected these concerns are: our judgement of the 'best evidence' can produce a judgement on how to 'scale up' success
Here are three ideal-type approaches to using evidence to transfer or 'scale up' successful interventions. In at least two cases, the choice of 'best evidence' seems linked inextricably to the choice of transfer strategy:
With approach 1, you gather evidence of effectiveness with reference to a hierarchy of evidence, with systematic reviews and RCTs at the top (see pages 4, 15, 33). This has a knock-on effect for 'scaling up': you introduce the same model in each area, requiring 'fidelity' to the model to ensure you administer the correct 'dosage' and measure its effectiveness with RCTs.
With approach 2, you reject this hierarchy and place greater value on practitioner and service user testimony. You do not necessarily 'scale up'. Instead, you identify good practice (or good governance principles) by telling stories based on your experience and inviting other people to learn from them.
With approach 3, you gather evidence of effectiveness based on a mix of evidence. You seek to 'scale up' best practice through local experimentation and continuous data gathering (by practitioners trained in 'improvement methods').
The comparisons between approaches 1 and 2 (in particular) show us the strong link between a judgement on evidence and transfer. Approach 1 requires particular methods to gather evidence and high policy uniformity when you transfer solutions, while approach 2 places more faith in the knowledge and judgement of practitioners.
Therefore, our choice of what counts as EBPM can determine our policy transfer strategy. Or, a different transfer strategy may – if you adhere to an evidential hierarchy – preclude EBPM.
I describe these issues, with concrete examples of each approach here, and in far more depth here:
Evidence-based best practice is more political than it looks: 'National governments use evidence selectively to argue that a successful policy intervention in one local area should be emulated in others ('evidence-based best practice'). However, the value of such evidence is always limited because there is: disagreement on the best way to gather evidence of policy success, uncertainty regarding the extent to which we can draw general conclusions from specific evidence, and local policymaker opposition to interventions not developed in local areas. How do governments respond to this dilemma? This article identifies the Scottish Government response: it supports three potentially contradictory ways to gather evidence and encourage emulation'.
Both articles relate to 'prevention policy' and the examples (so far) are from my research in Scotland, but in a future paper I'll try to convince you that the issues are 'universal'
Filed under 1000 words, Evidence Based Policymaking (EBPM), Prevention policy, public policy
Tagged as best practice, evidence, evidence-based policymaking, Government, hierarchy of evidence, improvement method, improvement science, policy diffusion, policy theory, policy transfer, policymaking, Politics, prevention policy, public policy, scaling up, story telling
Policy Concepts in 1000 Words: Policy Transfer and Learning
https://paulcairney.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/podcast-transfer-10-2-16.mp3 (podcast download)
'Policy learning' describes the use of knowledge to inform policy decisions. That knowledge can be based on information regarding the current problem, lessons from the past or lessons from the experience of others. This is a political, not technical or objective, process (for example, see the ACF post). 'Policy transfer' describes the transfer of policy solutions or ideas from one place to another, such as by one government importing the policy in another country (note related terms such as 'lesson-drawing', 'policy diffusion' and 'policy convergence' – transfer is a catch-all, umbrella, term). Although these terms can be very closely related (one would hope that a government learns from the experiences of another before transferring policy) they can also operate relatively independently. For example, a government may decide not to transfer policy after learning from the experience of another, or it may transfer (or 'emulate') without really understanding why the exporting country had a successful experience (see the post on bounded rationality). Here are some major examples:
It is a topic that lends itself well to practical advice; the 'how to' of policymaking. For example, Richard Rose's 'practical guide' explores 10 steps:
The descriptive/ empirical side asks these sorts of questions:
From where are lessons drawn? In the US, the diffusion literature examines which states tend to innovate or emulate. Some countries are also known as innovators in certain fields – such as Sweden and the social democratic state, Germany on inflation control and the UK on privatization. The US (or its states) tends to be a major exporter of ideas. Some countries often learn consistently from the same source (such as the UK from the US). Studies tend to highlight the reasons for borrowing from certain countries – for example, they share an ideology, common problems or policy conditions. 'Globalization' has also reduced practical barriers to learning between countries.
Who is involved? Apart from the usual suspects (elected officials, civil servants, interest groups), we can identify the role of federal governments (for states), international organizations (for countries), 'policy entrepreneurs' (who use their experience in one country to sell that policy to another – such as the Harvard Business School professor travelling the world selling 'new public management'), international networks of experts (who feed up ideas to their national governments), multinational corporations (who encourage the 'race to the bottom', or the reduction of taxes and regulations in many countries), and other countries (such as the US).
Why transfer? Is transfer voluntary? The Dolowitz/ Marsh continuum sums up the idea that some forms of transfer are more voluntary than others. 'Lesson-drawing' is about learning from another country's experience without much pressure (see the book to explain why I scribbled out some of the text!). At the other end is coercion. They place 'conditionality' near that end of the spectrum, since the idea is that countries who are so desperate to borrow money from the International Monetary Fund will feel they have no choice but to accept the IMF's conditions – which usually involves reducing the role/ size of the state (although note the difference between agreeing to those conditions and meeting them). 'Obligated transfer' is further to the left because, for example, member states sign up to be influenced by EU institutions. Indirect coercion describes countries who feel they have to follow the lead of others, simply to 'keep up' or to respond to the 'externalities' or 'spillovers' of the policies of the other country (they are often felt most by small countries which share a border with larger countries).
What is transferred? How much is transferred? Transfer can range from the decision to completely duplicate the substantive aims and institutions associated with a major policy change, taking decades to complete, to the vague inspiration (or the very quick decision not to emulate and, instead, to learn 'negative lessons'). It can also be a cover for something you planned to do anyway – 'international experience' is a great selling point.
What determines the likelihood and success of policy transfer? For an importing government to be successful, it should study the exporting country's policy – and political system – enough to know what made it a success and if that success is transferable. Often, this is not done (governments may emulate without being particularly diligent) or it is not possible, since the policy may only work under particular circumstances (and we may not always know what those circumstances are). Much also depends on the implementation of policy, particularly when the transfer is encouraged by one organization and accepted reluctantly by another (such as when the EU, with limited enforcement powers, puts pressure on recalcitrant member states).
These questions are best asked alongside the general questions we explore in policymaking studies, including:
Bounded rationality and Incrementalism – do governments engage in trial-and-error and learn from their own mistakes first? Is learning and transfer restricted to the 'most similar' regions because there is no point in learning from countries radically different from our own? Do some governments emulate without learning? Is transfer from another, more innovative, government a common rule of thumb?
Multi-level Governance – does the existence of more policymaking arenas produce more innovation and a greater demand for learning? Or, does the diffusion of power undermine the ability of a central government to adopt policies from others?
Punctuated equilibrium – is transfer a rare opportunity produced by the sudden and unpredictable attention to new ideas?
I explore these issues (and Rose's advice) in a paper examining what Japan can learn from the UK's experience of regionalism. It includes a discussion (summarised from Keating et al – Paywall Green) of the extent to which policy converges in a devolved UK and how much of that we can attribute to transfer and/ or learning:
Filed under 1000 words, agenda setting, Evidence Based Policymaking (EBPM), Japan, public policy, Scottish politics, UK politics and policy
Tagged as European Union, Germany, International Monetary Fund, Japan, lesson-drawing, Policy, policy convergence, policy diffusion, policy transfer, Richard Rose, United States

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Abu Dhabi has only been on the calendar since 2009, but the race has already provided a wealth of memorable moments.
Formula One racing staged its first night race in 2008, and it followed it up in 2009 with the addition of its first twilight event: the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, held at the striking Yas Marina Circuit. Just after 1700 hours local time, as the sun was beginning to dip below the horizon, McLaren's Lewis Hamilton led the field into the first corner as a huge crowd watched on from the grandstands. But it wasn't to be the Briton's day: failing brakes forced him into retirement just 20 laps into the race.
Jenson Button (left) and Sebastian Vettel (right) had fought tooth and nail for the world title over the latter half of 2009, so it was only fitting that both men should end up on the podium at the season finale in Abu Dhabi. But while Button had clinched the ultimate prize in Brazil, at Yas Marina he had no answer for the Red Bull driver, who - once McLaren's Lewis Hamilton retired - was able to win at a canter. Button, pictured here showering Vettel with rosewater, eventually brought his Brawn home third after an entertaining late-race scrap with the other Red Bull of Mark Webber.
"I came round the third corner and saw a cloud of smoke in front of me. I couldn't move anywhere as there were cars all around me and then when the smoke cleared I saw Michael facing the wrong way round and stopped on track. I couldn't do anything…" That was Vitantonio Liuzzi's assessment of the shocking first-lap crash in the 2010 Yas Marina race which ended with the Italian's Force India perching precariously on top of Michael Schumacher's stricken Mercedes. Thankfully, despite the severity of the accident, both drivers escaped injury.
Going into the 2010 season finale at Abu Dhabi, Fernando Alonso was poised to complete a fairy-tale first year with Ferrari. After a mid-season wobble, the Spaniard had staged a remarkable comeback over the eight races leading up to the Yas Marina event, turning a 47-point championship deficit into an eight-point advantage. All he required to guarantee a third title was a top-two finish - and he didn't necessarily need that depending on where title rivals Vettel, Webber and Hamilton finished. Sadly for Alonso (second in this picture), it wasn't to be, thanks largely to a poor strategy call early in the race that led to him being stuck behind Vitaly Petrov (yellow car), who'd made his one and only pit stop under the early safety car brought out following the Schumacher/Liuzzi crash. Try as he might, Alonso just couldn't find a way past the Russian's rapid Renault and he eventually trailed home in seventh, losing the title by four points in the process.
Sebastian Vettel had nothing to lose going into the 2010 title decider in Abu Dhabi. The German was 15 points behind Fernando Alonso in the drivers' standings and knew he'd need a decent slice of luck to steal the crown. All Vettel could do was win and hope that everything else fell into place - and that's exactly what happened. Against the odds the Red Bull driver became the youngest world champion in F1 history, leading to these wild celebrations in the paddock.
One of the scariest incidents of the 2012 season occurred in the early stages of the race at Yas Marina when Mercedes' Nico Rosberg flew over the back of Narain Karthikeyan's HRT before slamming into the barriers. The spectacular incident occurred when Rosberg, who'd been shuffled down the order after an early pit stop for a new front wing, was left with no time to react as Karthikeyan, who he was following closely, slowed in a normally high-speed corner. "We had a problem with the hydraulic pressure and the steering of the car went rock solid - I had to lift my foot off the accelerator," Karthikeyan would subsequently explain. Thankfully neither driver was injured in the unusual accident.
Kimi Raikkonen's no-nonsense response to his race engineer's repeated radio interjections during the 2012 race at Yas Marina has become the stuff of legend. "Leave me alone, I know what I'm doing," the Finn exclaimed, and to be fair, he did. After inheriting the lead from Lewis Hamilton when the Briton's McLaren expired on lap 20, Raikkonen coolly held Ferrari's Fernando Alonso (in the background) at bay for 36 laps to take his first victory since returning to the sport at the beginning of the year.


text:
Explore the Range
Dikti Range
This range lies between Heraklion and Lassithi. Its highest summit is Spathi (2.148 m) and there are two more peaks at an altitude of more than 2000m.
Lassithi Plateau, the largest in Crete, lies at the heart of the range at an altitude of 850 m. It is surrounded by a series of smaller plateaus such as Katharo, Limnakaro, Mari, Lapathos, Omalos, Erganos and Nisimos. There is a mountain shelter at Limnakaro from where hikers ascend to Spathi.
Several gorges are found in the range of Lassithi. Apart from the two gorges named Havgas at Katharo and Kalamafka, there are more canyons such as Sarakina, Adrianos, Ambelos, Roza and Kritsa.
The Dikti range has shown a significant diversity in flora and fauna. The lower mountain sides are covered by olive, carob and pine trees. To the south-east, Selakano is the largest pine wood of Crete and close to the village Krasi lies the holm oak wood of Azilakodasos.
The fertile plateaus and valleys of the Dikti range produce a large variety of agricultural products: potatoes, vegetable, pears, apples, walnuts, cherries, etc. Livestock breeding (sheep and goats) is yet another traditional activity in this region. The famous Diktaean Cave where Zeus is said to have been born is open to the public.
What to see on the Diktaean Range:
Diktaean Cave
The impressive cave of Zeus, the Diktaean Cave, is located just 10 minutes walking-distance from Psychro, in Lassithi Plateau, at an altitude of 1025m. In Psychro there is plenty of parking areas, with plenty of restaurants nearby. Two paths leading to the cave start from the parking area. The easiest path is the left one, because in the right path (the oldest) the stones are worn by thousands of tourists and are slippery.
The wonderful Lassithi Plateau is located about 25km south of Malia and 70km west of Heraklion city. Located in a peaceful and fertile region, it is surrounded by the wild mountains of Dikti and several smaller plateaus. The views of the surrounding mountains of Selena and Afendis Hristos are majestic.
Sarakina Gorge
16km west of the Ierapetra is the traditional village of Mythi. In a short distance from the village, the small Sarakina Gorge starts, which ends near the Mirtos. The length of the canyon reaches 1.5km and its width ranges from 3 to 10 meters, with only a few points exceeding that.
Plane tree of Krassi
In the village square of Krasi, near Malia, there are three plane trees, the trademarks of the village. The most important of them is the platan in the center of the square, which is considered to be the oldest and most majestic of the plane trees in Crete.
Havgas Gorge (Katharo) at Lassithi Plateau
Through the gorge passes Havgas river that carries water from the plateau of Katharo to Lassithi. Then the water reaches Chonos (the hole from which waters of the Lassithi Plateau escape the plateau), comes out from Fleves and reaches Aposelemis dam. The river has water for several months a year. Thus, make sure you get properly informed about the weather because the canyon carries a lot of water during periods of rainfall.
Trapeza Cave (Kronion)
The cave Trapeza, also known as Kronion Cave, is located between the village Marmaketo and Tzermiado, in Lassithi Plateau, at an altitude of 860m. It's located near the secondary road that connects Marmaketo with Tzermiado School. There are signs leading to the cave both in Tzermiado and Marmaketo. A path with steps, hidden in trees, leads to the cave after ascending for 5'. The entrance to the cave is quite indiscernible and the view to Lassithi plateau from there is magnificent.
Agia Fotini Cave and Agia Anna church
The cave of Agia Fotini is on located on Mount Louloudaki, 7km south of Avdou village, at an altitude of 760m. 35km east of Heraklion is the Avdou village, where a sign "Agia Fotini Cave - 7 km", shows the direction. From there you enter a dirt road, which leads to a small square below the mouth of the cave. Following the steep path on foot, the visitor arrives at the entrance of the cave.
Selakano Wood
The forest Selakano is located 35km north of Ierapetra, in the southeastern part of the Dikti massif, surrounded by the four highest peaks (Lazaros 2085 m, Spathi 2148 m, Afendis Christos 2141 m, Psari Madara 2090 m). The area can be accessed via asphalted road that runs through a magical route till the village Selakano and starts either in Ierapetra or Kalamafka.


I have been writing for as long as I can remember. I am sure that there are yellowed sheets of paper in a box someplace containing my first, barely-legible stories (and no doubt many of them starred a princess of one sort or another — oh! or a space princess! I must have written one of those).
I have been fortunate to have my work featured in a number of venues, both online, in digital format, and in print. Below are listed all of my short story anthologies, the various essays I have written, my short fiction, a few interviews with me, and my devotional poetry. Everything is in alphabetical order (just because), but if you are looking for a particular piece and cannot find it listed here, don't hesitate to email me at lyradora@yahoo.com.
Also, check out my Amazon Author Page!


We all know that many torrent websites are down since few months however There are few which are still working and we are working. If you come across any better tracker links than please do share with us in comment section.
I wish all my readers a very happy and prosperous Diwali and I hope this festival brings lots & lots of joy, wealth and happiness.


text:
Q: Как реализовать валидацию INotifyDataErrorInfo для отдельного свойства объекта модели Есть некий объект бизнес модели Participant который имеет множество текстовых свойств, содержащих полное и краткое имя субъекта, каждое в 6 падежах, итого 12 свойств:
public class Participant
{
//...
    public string NameShort1 {get; set;}
    public string NameShort2 {get; set;}
    public string NameShort3 {get; set;}
    public string NameShort4 {get; set;}
    public string NameShort5 {get; set;}
    public string NameShort6 {get; set;}

    public string NameLong1 {get; set;}
    public string NameLong2 {get; set;}
    public string NameLong3 {get; set;}
    public string NameLong4 {get; set;}
    public string NameLong5 {get; set;}
    public string NameLong6 {get; set;}
//...
}

Очевидно, что в моей модели представления, которая реализована через INotifyPropertyChanged я привязываю экземпляр данного объекта целиком, а не как набор из 12+ свойств привязки, чтобы не захламлять код, примерно так:
    private Participant selectedParticipant;
    public Participant SelectedParticipant
    {
        get { return selectedParticipant; }
        set
        {
            selectedParticipant = value;
            OnPropertyChanged("SelectedParticipant");
        }
    }

Соответствующее представление имеет стопку текстбоксов для редактирования текстовых полей:
                <StackPanel>
                    <local:CustomTextbox LabelText="И:" Text="{Binding SelectedParticipant.NameLong1}"  />
                    <local:CustomTextbox LabelText="Р:" Text="{Binding SelectedParticipant.NameLong2}" />
                    <local:CustomTextbox LabelText="Д:" Text="{Binding SelectedParticipant.NameLong3}" />
                    <local:CustomTextbox LabelText="В:" Text="{Binding SelectedParticipant.NameLong4}" />
                    <local:CustomTextbox LabelText="Т:" Text="{Binding SelectedParticipant.NameLong5}" />
                    <local:CustomTextbox LabelText="П:" Text="{Binding SelectedParticipant.NameLong6}" />
                </StackPanel>

Проблема возникает, когда я пытаюсь использовать INotifyDataErrorInfo на свойствах объекта SelectedClient не меняя конфигурацию привязки. Ниже приведена моя попытка реализовать валидацию свойства NameLong1:
    private Participant selectedParticipant;
    public Participant SelectedParticipant
    {
        get { return selectedParticipant; }
        set
        {
            //Удаляю ранее созданные ошибки
            dataErrorVM.ClearErrors("SelectedParticipant.NameLong1");
            //Проверяю NameLong1 на длину строки - не более 10 символов
            if (value.NameLong1.Length > 10)
                dataErrorVM.AddError("SelectedParticipant.NameLong1", "name is too long");
            selectedParticipant = value;
            OnPropertyChanged("SelectedParticipant");
        }
    }

Изменение имени в текстбоксе и смена фокуса с текстбокса не запускает сеттер для SelectedClient. Но даже если запустить сеттер иными способами, то ошибка валидации не воспринимается в представлении (красная рамках вокруг текстбокса). Я подозреваю что дело в том,что имя свойства "SelectedParticipant.NameLong1" записано некорректно, но не знаю правильного способа его записи.
Eсли я создаю отдельное свойство привязки для NameLong1 и каждого другого свойства, то валидация работает нормально, но количество писанины при таком подходе резко возрастает.
UPD
Руководствуясь комментарием @Kotomi я во-первых заменил кастомный текстбокс на стандартный текстбокс для ясности, а во-вторых провел сравнительный тест 2х текстбоксов привязанных по-разному:
                    <!--Текстбокс привязанный через объект
                    selectedClient.
                    Предпочтительный мной вариант, но сеттер не
                    вызывается при изменении значения, а интерфейс
                    игнорирует ошибку-->
                    <TextBox
                        Text="{Binding SelectedParticipant.NameLong1,
                        ValidatesOnNotifyDataErrors=True,
                        NotifyOnValidationError=True,
                        UpdateSourceTrigger=PropertyChanged}"
                    />
                    <!--Текстбокс, привязанный напрямую к отдельному
                    свойству NameLong1.
                    Работает как надо: текстбокс краснеет при превышении
                    лимита символов и возвращается обратно при стирании
                    строки-->
                    <TextBox
                        Text="{Binding NameLong1,
                        ValidatesOnNotifyDataErrors=True,
                        NotifyOnValidationError=True,
                        UpdateSourceTrigger=PropertyChanged}"
                    />

Модель представления:
    private Participant selectedParticipant;
    public Participant SelectedParticipant
    {
        get { return selectedParticipant; }
        set
        {
            dataErrorVM.ClearErrors("SelectedParticipant.NameLong1");
            if (value.NameLong1.Length > 10)
                dataErrorVM.AddError("SelectedParticipant.NameLong1", "name is too long!!");
            selectedParticipant = value;
            if (isEditEnabled == true)
                IsEditEnabled = false;
            OnPropertyChanged(nameof(SelectedParticipant));
            OnPropertyChanged("VisibilityCompany");
            OnPropertyChanged("VisibilityPerson");
        }
    }

    public string NameLong1
    {
        get { return selectedParticipant.NameLong1; }
        set
        {
            dataErrorVM.ClearErrors("NameLong1");
            if (value.Length > 10)
            { dataErrorVM.AddError("NameLong1", "name is too long!!"); }

            selectedParticipant.NameLong1 = value;

            OnPropertyChanged(nameof(NameLong1));
        }
    }

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


The Private Sector Development reports look at the Aynak and Amu Darya projects as opportunities to trigger the development of the Afghan private sector, especially the construction and civil works sectors.
With a focused and early program of capacity building, domestic Afghan firms could reach quality levels sufficient to supply around $800 million priority goods and services needed to construct the Aynak copper mine and the Amu Darya oil blocks. These local firms could also provide about $151 million worth of operational goods and services representing about 22 percent of the total expenditures.
Many local companies are keen to work in mining and oil and gas, but need better access to information and business connections so they can more strategically invest in the capabilities needed to reach sufficient quality levels.
Local procurement faces challenges of a) quality and availability of goods and services; b) insufficient information leading to uncertainty to assess revenues/ borrow at equity stakes; c) poor information flows to the private sector regarding available services; d) potential political and economic risks given the upcoming 2014 withdrawal of foreign forces and uncertainty about the timing of extractive industry investments.
The suggested support program would focus on local businesses that are already viable, established and have strong management. It would require active participation from multilateral and bilateral donors, the Aynak and Amu Darya investors, the Ministry of Mines, the Afghanistan Chamber of Commerce and Industries (ACCI) and other associations, investors and local businesses.
The proposal is to create enterprise centers that provide multiple services to local businesses in order to address some of these issues. The governing and coordination body would collect all procurement needs from private sector investors and distribute the information to suppliers through the development of a traditional and virtual marketplace.
These offices would also link local businesses and potential investors through conferences and communication campaigns as well as manage the capacity and skills development program provided by technical mentors from extractive industry investors, business mentors and independent bodies.
In addition, it would help integrate investment plans to upgrade local supply into work plans designed for companies meeting thresholds of capability to upgrade quality. The combination of mentorship and investment from funds, grants or private equity partners would result in an improvement of local production through increased capacity and better quality.
The program would be monitored and evaluated rigorously to assess effectiveness.


text:
const assert = require('chai').assert;
const Surfer = require('../lib/surfer');

describe('Surfer', function() {
  context('with default attributes', function() {
    var surfer = new Surfer({});

    it('has a default x value', function(){
      assert.equal(surfer.x, 20);
    });

    it('has a default y value', function(){
      assert.equal(surfer.y, 130);
    });

    it('has a default width value', function(){
      assert.equal(surfer.width, 50);
    });

    it('has a default height value', function(){
      assert.equal(surfer.height, 60);
    });
  });

  context('jump method and attributes', function () {

    it('should have a method called "jump()"', function () {
      var surfer = new Surfer({});
      assert.isFunction(surfer.jump);
    });

    it('should decrement the y value and surfer bottom if given a negative velocity', function () {
      var canvaz = {height: 200};
      var surfer = new Surfer({y: 130, height: 60, canvas: canvaz});
      surfer.velocity = -13;
      surfer.gravity = 1;

      surfer.jump();

      assert.equal(117, surfer.y);
      assert.equal(177, surfer.bottom);
      assert.equal(-12, surfer.velocity);
    });

    it('should decrement the y value and surfer bottom if given a negative velocity after 2 frames', function () {
      var canvaz = {height: 200};
      var surfer = new Surfer({y: 130, height: 60, canvas: canvaz});
      surfer.velocity = -13;
      surfer.gravity = 1;

      surfer.jump();
      surfer.jump();

      assert.equal(105, surfer.y);
      assert.equal(165, surfer.bottom);
      assert.equal(-11, surfer.velocity);
    });

    it('should decrement the y value and surfer bottom should reach top of jump after 13 frames', function () {
      var canvaz = {height: 200};
      var surfer = new Surfer({y: 130, height: 60, canvas: canvaz});
      surfer.velocity = -13;
      surfer.gravity = 1;

      surfer.jump();  // 1
      surfer.jump();  // 2
      surfer.jump();  // 3
      surfer.jump();  // 4
      surfer.jump();  // 5
      surfer.jump();  // 6
      surfer.jump();  // 7
      surfer.jump();  // 8
      surfer.jump();  // 9
      surfer.jump();  // 10
      surfer.jump();  // 11
      surfer.jump();  // 12
      surfer.jump();  // 13

      assert.equal(39, surfer.y);
      assert.equal(99, surfer.bottom);
      assert.equal(0, surfer.velocity);
    });

    it('should have a method called "belowGround()"', function () {
      var surfer = new Surfer({});
      assert.isFunction(surfer.belowGround);
    });

    it('belowGround() should return false', function () {
      var canvaz = {height: 200};
      var surfer = new Surfer({y: 130, height: 60, canvas: canvaz});
      surfer.velocity = -13;

      surfer.belowGround();

      assert.equal(false, surfer.belowGround());
    });

    it('belowGround() should return true', function () {
      var canvaz = {height: 200};
      var surfer = new Surfer({y: 131, height: 60, canvas: canvaz});
      surfer.velocity = 0;
      surfer.bottom = 191;

      surfer.belowGround();

      assert.equal(true, surfer.belowGround());
    });

    it('should have a method called "up()"', function () {
      var surfer = new Surfer({});
      assert.isFunction(surfer.up);
    });

    it('up() should return true', function () {
      var surfer = new Surfer({y: 130, height: 60});
      surfer.velocity = -10;
      surfer.gravity = 1;

      surfer.up();

      assert.equal(120, surfer.y);
      assert.equal(180, surfer.bottom);
    });

    it('should have a method called "resetAtGround()"', function () {
      var surfer = new Surfer({});
      assert.isFunction(surfer.resetAtGround);
    });

    it('resetAtGround() should return true', function () {
      var surfer = new Surfer({y: 200, height: 60});
      surfer.velocity = -10;

      surfer.resetAtGround();

      assert.equal(130, surfer.y);
      assert.equal(190, surfer.bottom);
      assert.equal(0, surfer.velocity);
    });

  });
});

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Articles by MEF Staff and Fellows
With New Surveillance Satellite, Israel's Military Gets Even Stronger
https://www.meforum.org/61259/israel-new-surveillance-satellite
Originally published under the title "Israel's Military Is About to Get Even Stronger Thanks to One Thing."
Israel's newest surveillance satellite, Ofek-16, lifted off near Palmachim military base in central Israel on July 6.
In the hours just before dawn on July 6, Israel's top military brass, executives from Israel Aerospace Industries, and key defense companies waited for news of a successful orbit as Israel's latest surveillance satellite lifted off from near Palmachim military base in central Israel. Ofek-16, the new satellite, is the latest success in Israel's space program. Israel has been launching satellites since 1988 and has its own indigenous space program designed to make the country totally independent from end-to-end in building satellites and jamming them full of the latest imaging technology.
Ofek-16 will join Ofek-11 and several other Israeli satellites, both commercial such as the Eros series, and communication such as the Amos satellites. The prime contractor was Israel's premier aerospace defense company, IAI, and its Systems, Missiles, and Space Group. The Space Administration in the Directorate of Defense Research and Development of the Israel Ministry of Defense, pushed for the launch this summer despite the coronavirus pandemic. Israel seeks to put several satellites in orbit a decade so it was important to stay on one schedule.
Israel's indigenous space program makes it independent in building and launching advanced satellites.
Israel used its locally-made Shavit launcher and fired the satellite west, instead of the way most satellites are launched to the east. Because of Israel's sensitive neighbors, Israel can't be shooting satellites over the West Bank, Jordan and Iraq.
The satellite is now in orbit and will undergo tests before delivering imagery to Israel's elite intelligence units of the IDF. The satellite's payload was developed by Elbit Systems. The launch engines were developed by Rafael Advanced Systems and Tomer, a government-owned defense company.
The Jupiter space camera
Rafael, best known for Israel's Iron Dome defense system and Trophy active protection for tanks, which is used in the US, provided key elements for the launch. The defense giant produced the third stage propulsion for the launcher, the thrusters for the launcher's reaction control system, full hydrazine propulsion system for the satellite, a payload structure made of unique composite materials and fueling for the site. Elbit Systems supplied the Jupiter Space camera which is 1.5 meters long and weighs 120kg. With a 700mm aperture it provides multispectral high resolution imaging of 50cm from an altitude of 600km. Each shot can capture 15 sq km, the company says. This is the unparalleled surveillance camera that Israel needs as it faces increasing Iranian threats, including Iranian weapons trafficking via Iraq and Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Defense Minister Benny Gantz, who recently took up his post after signing a unity deal with Israel's ruling party head Benjamin Netanyahu, said "this is another extraordinary achievement for the defense establishment, for the defense industries as a whole, and for Israel Aerospace Industries in particular." He said the satellite will provide technological superiority and intelligence capabilities that are essential to the security of the State of Israel. "The fact that Israel is one of the thirteen countries in the world with satellite launching capabilities is not a given, and was made possible by the people who have been investing in these systems and advancing breakthrough capabilities over the years. We will continue to strengthen and maintain Israel's capabilities on every front, in every place."
Israel has been sending satellites to space for decades but truly came into its own in the last two decades. It was during this era that it got five satellites into orbit to provide commercial and intelligence service imaging. It also works with other countries, from France to Italy and India on key aspects of this space technology.
There were challenges in Israel's space race over the years. For instance Iran recently launched a military satellite that is seen as part of Iran's overall threat posture. In addition Israel had to postpone launchings of several satellites over the last decade and a half. One communications satellite even blew up in 2016 in Cape Canaveral. Today the country appears to be back in stride. It's last Ofek-series satellite was publicly launched in 2016. The missing numbers between Ofek 11 and Ofek 16 are said to be random and not evidence that there are four other satellites in the series in orbit.
Satellites complement Israel's other electro-optic surveillance capabilities.
Amnon Harari, head of the Space Administration in Israel and a key figure going back many years in Israel's quest to dominate in the space arena, said he took pride in the launch. By joining the other Ofek satellites Israel completes its imaging coveragee; satellites in this kind of low earth orbit of several hundred kilometers pass over every hour and a half, so you need several to always have them on station watching. Satellites complement other electro-optic surveillance needs, such as large high altitude UAVs that Israel has, including the Heron and Hermes models. But UAVs have a range and may not be able to fly into enemy contested airspace where air defense can target them.
Shlomi Sudri of IAI's Space Division said the satellite enables Israel to enhance its strategic capabilities. It will enhance the IDF's intelligence capabilities. Another IAI executive noted that this generation Ofek-16 is similar to the one launched in 2011 with minor adjustments. The satellite weights around 400kg and was readied for launch during the coronavirus pandemic. This meant protecting the staff in a unique environment on a base and also keeping the schedule on time. The IAI team was obviously very excited, describing waiting patiently for the launch and seeing the satellite reach orbit.
Israel today faces increasing threats from Iran's attempt to transfer precision guided munitions to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel has also said it has carried out more than 1,000 airstrikes against Iran in Syria, seeking to prevent Iranian entrenchment. Iran has up to 900 IRGC personnel in Syria and the head of the IRGC Quds Force Esmail Ghaani recently visited Albukaml in Syria near the Iraqi border. Iran has been supplying its proxy forces in the region with drones and ballistic missiles, including those the Houthi rebels in Yemen use to target Saudi Arabia.
This entire web of Iranian activity is a unique threat for Israel. Unlike the massed Soviet-supplied tanks of the past that were in the hands of the Egyptians and Syrians in the 1960s, or the Palestinian terror groups that blew up buses in the early 2000s, today's challenge is what Israel calls the "third circle." Under a new plan Israel has created a special headquarters in charge of dealing with the Iran threat. Israel's needs for more satellites compliment its fifth generation F-35s and their unique capabilities. As such the country continues to be a hi-tech defense powerhouse. However it also faces unique threats and continues to prepare for the next conflict. So far Israel has kept that conflict at arms length through what it calls the "campaign between the wars," aimed at using smaller precision airstrikes to deter a larger conflict. If and when that conflict comes the superior imaging from satellites like Ofek-16 will be key.
Seth Frantzman is a Ginsburg-Milstein Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and senior Middle East correspondent at The Jerusalem Post.
Related Topics: Israel & Zionism | Seth J. Frantzman receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing list


text:
SKID ROW Officially Recruits Ex-DRAGONFORCE Singer ZP THEART, Prepares To Make New Record
Kostas Tsotsanis January 15, 2017
South African-born, British-based singer ZP Theart...
Interview: Sinsaenum (Fred Leclercq)
John Savvidis August 30, 2016
It's been quite some time since we've talked about a new band. This time it's SINSAENUM, a black/death project of Attila Csihar (Mayhem), Joey Jordison (ex-Slip...
New Band Featuring Joey Jordison, Attila Csihar, Frédéric Leclercq
Andrew Koran June 8, 2016
Joey Jordison launches new band Sinsaenum featuring...
DRAGONFORCE To Release 'In The Line Of Fire' Concert DVD
Manos Spanos February 12, 2015
British epic power metallers DRAGONFORCE will release debut ...
BabyMetal Teams Up With Dragonforce For The Song "Road Of Resistence"
BabyMetal have shared the trailer for...
DRAGONFORCE Parts Ways With Drummer DAVE MACKINTOSH, Announces Replacement
Manos Spanos June 3, 2014
British epic power metallers DRAGONFORCE have parted ways with drummer Dave Mackintosh and have replaced him with former BRAINDAMAGE and KILL RITUAL member Gee Anzalone. A native of Turin, Italy, Gee is a drum teacher who graduated from the NAMM Academy of Milan and carries on the well established multi-national mix of musicians that make up DRAGONFORCE. Gee will make his live debut with DRAGONFORCE on the forthcoming "Maximum Overload" U.K. tour, which commences on September 17 in Edinburgh. Dave is moving on to pastures new to focus on his first musical love, which is progressive rock. He says in a statement: "After much thought, I have parted ways with the boys in DRAGONFORCE to pursue my first love of progressive rock. I wish the lads all the luck in the world and look forward to the release of 'Maximum Overload' as I truly believe this is the most fantastic DRAGONFORCE album that I and the boys have recorded to date! "Many thanks to all the fans who have supported me in this last decade of massive tours, countless shows and all the albums. I couldn't have done it without you. "I will continue to tour and play with some of the greatest names in prog rock, and hope to see some familiar faces on the road! "In the meantime, stay metal, watch out for the new Dave Mackintosh web site which will be launched within the next four weeks as well as some great new videos I will be producing with my gear sponsors." Added DRAGONFORCE guitarist Herman Li: "We have been through a lot with Dave and want to thank him for everything he has contributed to DRAGONFORCE, both as a friend and musician, and we would all like to wish him well with his new project." DRAGONFORCE will release its new album, "Maximum Overload", on August 19 in North America via Metal Blade and August 18 in Europe through earMUSIC, the Hamburg, Germany-based international rock label which is part of Edel Group. The CD was recorded at Fascination Street studios in Örebro, Sweden with Jens Bogren, who has previously worked with OPETH, THE DEVIN TOWNSEND PROJECT, AMON AMARTH, KATATONIA, SOILWORK and SYMPHONY X, to name a few. It marks the band's first-ever album involving an outside producer, having historically opted to record themselves in association with Karl Groom. "Maximum Overload" will be released on standard CD, standard digital version, special edition CD with five bonus tracks and a bonus DVD, special edition digital version (same bonus material as special edition CD), and vinyl. The effort features a couple of surprises, notably a guest appearance on some of the songs from TRIVIUM's Matt Heafy. "Maximum Overload" also features an all time first for DRAGONFORCE... a cover version! Guitarist Sam Totman explained: "Just before the last Australian tour, our manager suggested it might be interesting to do a cover for the next album, something we've always refused even to consider. Because we had all had a couple beers, every bandmember wrote down three songs each and we compared them all, just for a laugh. I wrote down 'Ring Of Fire' by Johnny Cash, an idea which the rest of the band loved, so we've DRAGONFORCE-ized it." "Maximum Overload" is the follow-up to 2012's "The Power Within", which was the band's first with vocalist Marc Hudson. Since his live debut with the group in July 2011, Marc has gone on to front over 100 shows with DRAGONFORCE in 32 countries across the globe, including arenas with IRON MAIDEN as well as a mammoth headlining world tour to support the CD. A demo version of a new DRAGONFORCE song called "Defenders", featuring a guest appearance by TRIVIUM frontman Matt Heafy, can be streamed below. "The Power Within" sold 5,800 copies in the United States in its first week of release to debut at position No. 74 on The Billboard 200 chart.
DRAGONFORCE To Enter Studio In May
Manos Spanos April 12, 2013
British epic metallers DRAGONFORCE have completed writing the follow-up to last year's "The Power Within" album, which was their first with vocalist Marc Hu...
Dragonforce Members Discuss Singer Change In New Interview
Manos Spanos April 8, 2012
Niclas Müller-Hansen of Sweden's Metalshrine recently conducted an interview with with vocalist Marc (more…)...
Dragonforce: The Making Of 'The Power Within' – Webisode 1
The first in a series of webisodes featuring behind-the-scenes footage from the making of (more…)...
Dragonforce: To Release Live Album
Panagiotis Karagiannidis June 26, 2010
DRAGONFORCE, the stellar musicians whose latest 'Ultra Beatdown' album charted strongly (more…)...


text:
Q: NotNullValidator error message inconsistency I'm using NotNullValidator from Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.Validation.Validators NotNullValidator.
And i'm using custom error message declared in
[NotNullValidator(Tag = "error", ErrorMessage = "Hodnota musí být vyplněna")]

On my machine, this works great, but on a tester's machine instead of my custom error message, it shows "The value cannot be null"
Tester's computer is using windows in the same language as I do. Any idea why is this happening?
Thank you.


text:
Wamsutter
Sightseeing & Attractions
Scenic Byways & Drives
History & Museums
Sweetwater Events Complex
Socially Distant Activities
EAT + SLEEP
Hotels and Inns
Lodges and Guest Ranches
Adventure Rentals
International Travel Guide
Guide to Cross-Country Ski and Snowshoe Trails
Explore Wintry Landscapes
Rock Springs and Green River, Wyoming offer plenty of winter recreation during the snow-filled winter months. Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing are great ways to explore our wintry landscapes. Choose from a variety of Bureau of Land Management lands or recreation areas as you take advantage of the thinner crowds and peaceful surroundings. Here's a guide to get you started on your cross-country ski and snowshoe trip to Sweetwater County.
Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area
Explore miles of groomed trails in the Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area. Cross-country ski or snowshoe on a trail suited for your skills. This area has many breathtaking views, along with opportunities to spot wildlife.
Red Canyon Rim Trail
The popular Red Canyon Rim trail has minimal elevation gain and ranges from 4 to 9 miles. There are many scenic overlooks to view the winter landscape. For a longer, more strenuous adventure, continue on to the Swett Ranch Loop trail. The Red Canyon Rim trailhead begins at the Red Canyon Visitor Center. The visitor center is located on a turnoff between mileposts 3 and 4 on UT-44.
Bear Canyon Bootleg Trail
The Bear Canyon Bootleg trail is a great beginner trail. It is three miles round trip and passes the amphitheater and various winter landscapes. The trail features views of Lake Flaming Gorge and Bear Canyon. From Rock Springs, the marked trailhead is located along US Highway 191, just before the Flaming Gorge Resort.
For more cross-country and snowshoe trails in the area, see the Flaming Gorge County Winter Recreation Guide or the Forest Service's list of trails. Cross-country ski rentals are available at Flaming Gorge Resort, and snowshoe rentals are available at Red Canyon Lodge.
South Pass Historic Mining Area
The South Pass Historic Mining Area is located in Shoshone National Forest and is managed by the BLM. The area features many miles of nature trails and two historic towns that boomed during the Gold Rush – South Pass and Atlantic City. The Continental Divide, Oregon Trail and other historic trails run through this area. The three-mile Volksmarch trail also passes through the town. During the winter, these trails are accessible by snowshoe.The South Pass Historic Mining area is located 25 miles south of Lander and 90 miles north of Rock Springs. Access the area from US-28 via county roads 515 and 516.
Start planning your cross-country ski and snowshoe adventure today. Experience Sweetwater County's historic trails, vast lands and scenic recreation areas this winter!
Disclaimer: This is a true "off the grid experience," and cell service is limited! Make sure you have extra water, and a high-clearance, four-wheel-drive vehicle with thick tires (and a spare tire) to traverse the dirt roads. Let someone know where you are headed and when you plan to return.
Flaming Gorge Bus Tour
Book Now X
Get the latest news, events and specials. Join our email list.
JOIN OUR LIST? YES, SEND ME EMAIL UPDATES ON SWEETWATER COUNTY! PRIVACY POLICY | GDPR FAQ
The Sweetwater County Joint Travel and Tourism Board would like to thank the following businesses and agencies for their contribution to this website: U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Green River Star, The Radio Network, City of Rock Springs, City of Green River, Sweetwater County Historical Museum, Green River Chamber of Commerce, Rock Springs Chamber of Commerce, and Rock Springs Historical Museum.
TOURISM PARTNER INFO
TOURISM AMBASSADOR PROGRAM
GRANT & BOARD INFO
We serve cookies to analyze traffic and customize content on this site. Privacy Policy | GDPR FAQ


text:
Home » Lifestyle » Hollywood stars campaign to save jail where Oscar Wilde was detained
Hollywood stars campaign to save jail where Oscar Wilde was detained
Want to be a mystery writer? Check out these Zoom and doom online classes
Closing on love: A broker's tips for signing the contract on romance
Best books of 2020: The top 30 must-read titles from the past year
Legendary spy novel author John le Carré dead at 89
Three British stars are campaigning to save the jail where Irish poet and playwright Oscar Wilde was held for being gay in the late 1800s.
Judi Dench, Kenneth Branagh and "Game of Thrones" star Natalie Dormer want the Reading Prison, which was built in 1844 and located 40 miles west of London, to be preserved as a center for culture, according to reports.
Wilde was incarcerated at Reading between 1895 and 1897, accused of "gross indecency." The prison, formerly known as Reading Gaol, was shuttered in 2013, and a bid to sell it to developers fell through in November.
Reading's local council is hoping to turn the building, which is located in the town center, into an arts venue. In 2016, the empty building was used to host art exhibits, and calls grew to permanently transform the prison into an arts complex, according to the BBC.
Branagh, who spent part of his childhood in Reading, told the BBC that the town "deserves to preserve and transform its world-renowned link with a unique piece of social, political and artistic history."
Kate Middleton moves away from 'royal traditions' and parents in her 'own style'
Giannis Antetokounmpo to sign a 5-year, $228 million extension with the Bucks in a huge win for the NBA's small markets
Challenges Like #MeAt20 Are Fun As Hell. Experts Say Scammers Love Them, Too.
Gigi Hadid Reveals Why She Is Holding Off on Sharing Pregnancy Photos — and Shares Peek of Her Baby Bump
Arsenal flops DESERVE to get booed with Mikel Arteta not problem but players not good enough, slams Emmanuel Frimpong
← Avengers Endgame plot hole solved? 'Luis was the other Ant-Man in final battle mistake'
Brian Austin Green and 'DWTS' Star Sharna Burgess Make Their Relationship IG Official →


This report, from the New Zealand Birth Defects Registry (NZBDR), operated by the Centre for Public Health Research (CPHR) at Massey University, summarizes data on birth defects prevalence for New Zealand for 2010. A number of select birth defects per 1,000 live births are reported, along with total live births and total stillbirths. Birth defects associated with stillbirths are not included.
Center for Public Health Research, Massey University (New Zealand). New Zealand Prevalence of Selected Defects Reported to the International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research 2010.