Welcome back on the review and today I'm going to take a look at simplified drawing for planning animation by Wayne Gilbert. I have way too many books that talk about drawing and how to teach drawing because I'm really not good at it. Like I like the feeling of holding something and I like drawing I'm just not really good at it and by not really good I mean not at all. But I want to go back when I go back to learning the fundamentals and the beginnings because I just want to make better and it helps me with the critiques and helps me communicate my thoughts so I want to go back and I got a ton of books but one I want to go back to is this one because it is simplified and it's something that you can hold on to it it's small it's not a ginormous book that kind of really feel like it's going to take me forever to go through and the structure is interesting and the content is cool so let me show you how this works. So as you open this oh I forgot this is really old so you got the dedication sold in there and the thank you note and as you can see I'm bringing this over here this is from 1999 it's 21 years old you can still order it I'm working on that later. As you see this you see the intro and then it talks about the structure and you can see that weirdly it starts at three to one and he explains why this is like this and you can see well that's weird chapter three it's mainly because it goes straight into the nitty gritty and interesting aspects of the drawing and he knows that he says that you're gonna get this you're excited to get it and you want to dive into this way too quickly but if you want to do that you can do this and go through the book like this but what he recommends is to actually go to the back so as you go backwards now start here and work your way to the front of the book so you can see that he starts with practice practice for lines practice with circles warm-ups and starting to think in a more structured way in terms of three dimensions for sphere cubes his perspective and not really skipping anything as really goes into details how to think in terms of shapes then we're getting into figure drawing so then it gets into well think about the structure to simplify the anatomy center of gravity with important sections like balance there's a clip that either about balance that talks exactly about that you'll be careful about that and getting into the shape so it starts with the head different proportions different sizes how you can do variations of it of course all in a simplified way so you can get your drawings out quickly going into hands arms feet torso on the shoulder the legs twist in a torso you can see the line of action and the changes in the S curve in the spine all with the focus on simplification and if you want more there are many many examples here of other books that I actually sadly own and don't look at it enough or at all I love getting books and look at them they're great and then go and then put them aside and okay that's the problem that I have but if you want more there's more information there there are more detailed books and studies getting into the next chapter where you start seeing kind of like the rough planning storyboards and how like simple you can keep things while still telling a story and looking at a lot of examples so there are classic jump land recover he goes into weight lifts as well so details in terms of pose even like differences what the arms are doing again focusing on balance weight and force especially forces here that's a very important topic in terms of like how your body leans you can see for the line of action but what the action is going to be with the the fore and after the contrast and the movement more examples like a box step like a sit down and get up is a classic exercise even like a box step like that's a good one to do and it shows again in simplified shapes how you can do this the weight the weight shifts the balance of the arms are doing going to a classic flower sack but again different variations but what is the height what would happen if the box changes if the position that the character needs to get on to is higher again opposing forces especially when it comes to a lift like how do you hold it for contrast and different ways how the body will react depending on where the center of gravity is and where the weight is located love all that stuff really showing how you can do things how you can draw your line your line of action what it means for simplicity when you plan something it's good topic animating force versus animating form then getting more into some details about posing you have specific actions how you can draw it how you can show variations in the lines in the body proportions and I love this here posing your character before planning your animation which funny enough goes kind of we do that topic that I posted just recently with the clickbait title the biggest mistake that animators do I know I know that title but again looking at what the pose communicates and potentially fleshing out that first pose that will help you with the rest of the shot the tone it sets and the and maybe that first pose will help you plan other things and spark new ideas so I like that this is actually covered here I need to go read in this and for a refresher outlining what makes a good pose I love this too like simplified super simple but showing the differences in a lean or what the head is doing the size or head if it's lower what the shoulders are doing love all that stuff always reminding us to keep it as simple as possible research your work never back into chapter three and back into what I showed at the beginning so it's an interesting layout that you can start right away if you really interested in the nitty gritty you can start here or it's almost like I kind of go through books like this or I kind of do that so it's it's actually nice laid out for that and that's really why I like it because it is short and sweet it has the basics in there like a lot of variations and topics but still something you can just grab with you and always kind of go through and refresh your mind without being like a heavy heavy book with all kinds of topics it is really nicely focused on simplified drawing for planning animation as it says now where can you get this so if you go on amazon and check out the book there you go so you got the paperback for $25 there's also a Kindle version that's awesome for 10 bucks hmm I want that on my ipad and what 987 dollars and 25 cents for the spiral bound version really well I'm not selling this but anyway so lots of options Kindle paperback I guess spiral bound but other versions used ones so it's a bit cheaper but cool to have it for 10 bucks as a Kindle version I'm gonna put the link to that in the description and I'm gonna go through this practice drawing I have many many more books so as I'm going through I'm gonna bring out other books to review obviously also more advanced ones that I'm not there yet but I want to show what I got so maybe you but I'm sure many people probably 99% of people more than me and you might like those books I hope this was a helpful overview I've done other reviews there are more reviews coming things that are specific to animation and of course other things that are me learning out about things so more stuff is coming feel free to subscribe and hit that bell button so you don't miss any of those uploads because I do reviews I do shot reviews for my workshops I do lectures I do read reviews all kinds of stuff so subscribe and like if you want to if you're still watching this as always thank you for your patience to watch this and to stick with this until the very end that's it for me and I'll see you in my next upload


What's good y'all, it's your boy Ron Speck here again with another video. So we got Vince McMahon opponent linked WWE and then the brand split, AEW delete, Putin line and other wrestling news. I know we talked about Vince supposedly having some type of wrestling match this year, last week on on on another video.  There's no way that happens. I don't know, man. Maybe there is some truth. Maybe Vince McMahon is going to have a match at this year's WrestleMania. I don't want to see that. I'm just be honest with you. I think him being in the ring is past him. He wasn't just the best wrestler, but he was able to work different spots and stuff like that. And it was cool to see him back in the day getting the ring with Austin and some of the other talent or whatnot, just to enhance the story. But I don't think fans really want to see that anymore. So I don't know what's about to happen. This should be a good one, man. WrestleMania is always dropping some pretty dope videos related to wrestling news and rumors. So this should be a good one, man. But I appreciate all the love and support. We're almost at Sandi Kay. Thank you guys so much for that. Let's get right into this one. Now guys, it is WrestleMania here. Back with another video. Now the 2022 Elimination Chamber is in the rear view mirror as the road to WrestleMania continues with newly crowned WWE Champion Brock Lesnar appearing last night to confront Universal Champion Roman Reigns. Fans can expect a lot of fireworks when this happens, but what else? Well, join us now as we look at this week's edition of the blue brand, as well as the wildest news stories in the room that you need to know, including Mr. McMahon's WrestleMania opponent revealed. Is WWE scrapping the brand split? AEW deletes a controversial Vladimir Putin line and much more. Be sure to subscribe and hit that notification bell for daily wrestling videos and follow us on Facebook for exclusive lists. As always, we will recap the show, but just look at the good, the bad and the downright ugly. As always, we start off with the good as number one, a good Rousey promo. Can Rousey cut a good promo? Promo? Lots of question fans have debated ever since the baddest woman on the planet entered the WWE. While Rousey's first WWE run featured some awkward promos, Ronda improved when she turned heel, suggesting it might be a case of honing her mic skills. While Rousey is still a babyface, last night's promo showed Rousey is still learning. It was nice that the crowd didn't s*** on her, which always helps. 2. Pat McAfee is life Pat McAfee's colour commentary continues to add so much more to every episode of SmackDown and it's no stretch to say that he's so good that we'll tune in every Friday night just to see what craziness McAfee has in store. McAfee is one of those rare colour commentators whose enthusiasm never crosses the line into obnoxiousness and he makes every match seem so special. While Rousey could benefit from McAfee's presence, we're glad to see him on SmackDown as we're not sure how long Pat could last on Mondays before the show sucked the life out of him.  He knows how to be entertaining on the microphone when calling the match, it's great man, Pat McAfee is an actual gym and they need to keep him on SmackDown, don't bring him on Monday night raw, just keep him on SmackDown, SmackDown could definitely use his colour commentary. Speaking of McAfee, rumor has it he may be wrestling at this year's showcase of the Immortals. We should check into the news to see who he's facing. 3. Heyman cuts to commercial Paul Heyman has done a lot during his wrestling career, managing, running ECW and providing colour commentary so it's no surprise Roman Reigns' Tribal Council decided to try something new last night, in this case cutting to a commercial. The segment was kind of strange but it was also kind of cool, a reminder that you never know what the former poorly dangerously is gonna do. 4. A Star in the Making It was good to see Xayah Lee on SmackDown as she's one of the most promising new stars in the WWE's women's division and let's just pray she doesn't get the Tony Storm treatment. Her win over Natalya was exactly what you wanted from her at this point in her career, a chance for her to look good against an accomplished veteran. Now it's just up to the WWE to give her a sustained push, that's gonna be easier said than done however given the WWE's obsession with pushing an elite for you in the women's division it may not be that hard. 5. Best Brock Roman Segment Ever This segment was good, this segment was fantastic, Brock was fantastic, Roman knocked it out the park. This was great, this was a segment I enjoyed, one of their better ones and it definitely for me just a little bit created some more excitement for that match at this year's WrestleMania. Most of the WWE presenting perhaps the best segment ever between Brock and Reigns, these two have clashed so often in the ring and in talk segments that it's hard to find anything new to explore. Nonetheless, both men did as Brock channeled his best Paul Heyman talking trash while predicting a win over Roman at WrestleMania 38 as well as an ass beating for both Reigns and Heyman. Heyman did his usual trash talking but the highlight of the night was Roman Reigns' power mad proclamation that smacked down his place with the Universal Champion pointing out how everything is his, ranging from the cameraman, the announced crew, the fans and even the WrestleMania sign. Reigns took what could have been a ridiculously over the top promo and made it his own. The superb segment was capped off by the obligatory post-contract signing brawl as Brock lies in a level security which Roman noted as his security. And definitely a gold star for one of the security guards who had the way with all to sweep a wayward microphone out of the way were Brock delivered 8F5 to our hapless guard. Possibly saving him from a trip to the chiropractor's office. That was a good what about the baddest number one endless rematches. And does the blue brand have a temporal loop crisis? How else to explain the endless rematches fans must sit through? Last night's show featured the third match between Drew McIntyre and MagCat Moss as well as a new day's third throwdown with Los Lotharios. As we've noted these rematches might be interesting if the WWE added a storyline to them in the case of the new days versus the Los Lotharios or it spread the rematches out which is definitely not doing with Drew and MagCat. And number two, no time for women's matches? What's up with the WWE only giving its female undercard workers one or two minutes for each match? See, this is a problem that WWE does and you see it in the women's division. You saw with the women's queen tournament, queen of the ring tournament, the matches totaled up like 20 plus minutes out of all the competitors.  And I don't know why WWE does this because out of hell we're supposed to invest in the women if they're only having five minute matches when we know they can go. You know what I'm saying? That's that's my issue.  That's just me personally. They need to work on that. Less rematches focus more on, you know, fresh matchups if possible, longer matches that make sense and doing better for the women's division on smack down and probably on wrong. I'm pretty sure it's more or less the same one wrong as well. And we understand that main event is like Ronda Rousey and Charlotte get more time than performers like Xayah Lee and Natalia. But giving the undercard wrestlers short shrift is the meaning and Rob's fans have a chance to choose which wrestlers to root for. There was nothing ugly about last night's show where Smackdown provided a good follow-up show after Elimination Chamber and built up several big blue brambouts for this year's show of shows, while some fans might be disappointed to see Sami Zayn defend the Intercontinental Championship against a celebrity.  I love me some Johnny Knoxville, the jackass crew. I grew up on that, you know, but come on, man. It's like it's cool when bad bunnies out there wrestling, not for a title. Yeah, I know they did something with the 24 seven title, but we know that's a joke of a title. We know that that's what it is, but a prestigious Intercontinental Championship match title should not be on the line with a celebrity. It just shouldn't. It should not. I've never been a big fan of that. You know, if you're going to bring in a celebrity, it should be to have like a fun little match, maybe enhance a feud, but not to be going for an actual title only because it's like the people that held that belt, like, you know, a lot of those people, their careers were made by holding that championship and just as it should have so much prestige and and and type of type of worth in the company that it shouldn't just be given to anybody or it shouldn't even be potentially offered up in a match to anybody. Not everybody deserves that opportunity. That's just my opinion. I'm all for them having a match at WrestleMania, but it should not be for the title. That's that's where it's like, yeah, you need to say that for somebody within the company. Vince McMahon loves the mainstream media's attention on the WWE's biggest show and fans should expect other celebrities to compete there as well. Not good. Not bad. Just meh. What would you guys think of the blue brand last night? Let us know in the comments down below. Now let's move on to the news. Let me know. Now, first story looks at WWE scrapping the brand split. Top of today's news is a while rumor that's taking on a life of its own. The rumor concerns whether the WWE plans to scrap the brand split between Raw and SmackDown, a split that dates back to 2016. Other reason for all this talk has to do with the WWE boasting that the Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns bout at WrestleMania will be a title unification match as both the WWE and Universal Championship will be on the line. Naturally, fans are wondering just how the WWE intends to deal with the aftermath as a few fans expect the match to go anything but a definitive if not controversial finish. Some fans think this move makes it impossible for the WWE to do anything but feature the wrestlers of both brands on competing on each other's shows. While this is an interesting theory, it ignores the obvious alternative that the WWE could have one world champion while maintaining the brand split and having the champion defend the world title on both brands, much like the NWA World Champion travel to different territories defending the belt. There's also the possibility that the WWE could go the Becky two belts route and have the unified world champion drop one of the titles at some point in the future, leading to one title on each brand. Regardless of the outcome, the speculation as fans talking and should only increase the hype for WrestleMania 38 title unification match. What do you think is going to happen? Let us know in the comments down below. Now, here's the thing about this and this is why I've said this before. I've said this on Twitter that this unification match is really the only intrigue outside of what's going on with Brock and Roman. We've seen this so many times. They may have been a few times at WrestleMania. So this is the selling point when they announced it was a unification match. It's the intrigue. What's really going to happen here? Are they really going to end the brand split? Are they going to have one champion float between both shows? Is the network is going to be cool with that? Because once again, these are separate networks. These are not same networks and they got to be cool with the champions doing that. Hence, this is why, you know, they have certain say on who they want on the shows, who they feel will be best for the shows. They want it to be competitive to try to get ratings and views. So that matters as well. I don't know if you're going to have this match, you're going to call it a unification match. I mean, you would have it would make sense to get one belt. If you're going to unify, you don't unify it. You go to two to two belt route to only drop it to somebody else. Then it's not there's no point. You might as well call it a winter take all, but not a unification. Because they're saying it's a winter take all unification match. You're unifying the titles, which means it's going to be one belt, which means that one person floats between both shows, which pretty much kind of ends the brand split a little bit.  One women's champion, one tag team championship.  So I'm not really sure how this is going to work. It's going to be interesting to see. But I do think if you're going to unify the belts, it shouldn't be someone holding both belts and then they drop one because they drop when it comes off as one is being lesser than the other. Roman wins, right? He has both belts, but he drops the WWE championship to somebody. He still holds the universal championship. It gives off the vibe that the WWE championship is way less important than the universal championship. And if you're unifying it, it eliminates all that. That's all I'm saying. So comment down below. Let me know what y'all think about that, man. Like, do y'all think it's going to actually be a unification? We're going to get one belt. Do y'all think we'll probably just have one person holding both belts? And then eventually they'll drop one of them. Next up, Vince McMahon's opponent, Leete. No, no, no. Incredible rumors concerning WWE chairman, Vince McMahon, as the current talk is that not only is a 76 year old contemplating a return to the ring, but he plans on doing so against a WWE commentator. If you've been following the news, you know, that big Mac has told his writers that nothing is off the table, including an in-ring return by the WWE's resident genetic Jack Hammer. I know some of y'all were saying, no, there's no way it's happened. That's fake news. I'm telling you, this is Vince, man. This is his company.  Best believe he'll do what he has to do. And now ringside news is reporting when making the rounds is that the company is currently planning a feud between Vince McMahon and Pat McAfee for WrestleMania 38. It is further said that the feud will most likely culminate in an official match between the two at the show of shows. One clue that the match is going to happen is that Mr. McMahon is scheduled to appear on the Pat McAfee show on Thursday, 3rd March. Pat tweeted the news on 25th Friday about to have the conversation of a lifetime with the legendary billionaire genius Vince McMahon next week. Do you guys think Vince McMahon should get back in the ring? Let us know in the comments down below. I mean, I'm definitely going to check that out, man. Probably drop a video on that. That should be an interesting interview. But I want to see if they're going to actually build something from that. We will see. I don't want to see it. I just really don't want to see him in the ring. But we will see what happens here. I don't know. I'm willing to give it somewhat of a chance if it makes sense. I mean, it really don't make sense. And I think you can get that spot to somebody else at WrestleMania. But we'll have to see how their their interview goes. So next up, an update on Owen Hart Tournaments. A details are finally emerging on All Elite Wrestling's partnership with the Owen Hart Foundation and the Owen Hart Foundation Men and Women's Tournaments. Speculation began when AEW announced its partnership with the Foundation with questions as to how AEW would honor the late great grappler's legacy. Fans eventually learned that a men and women's tournament will be held. But questions of when have remained elusive until now. According to Wrestling Inc, AEW announced that they will return to the UBS Arena in Long Island, New York on May 11th for a live dynamite and taping for rampage that week. Tickets go on sale this Friday at 10 a.m. Eastern Time. It was noted that the taping will see the opening round matches in the Owen Hart Foundation Tournaments. While there's no word on who will participate or how many matches will be held. They noted the tournament finals will take place at the 2022 AEW Double or Nothing pay-per-view, which is expected for late May. Dr. Martha Hart will be live at Double or Nothing to present the winners with their trophy, which has been called the Owen Cup. And finally, AEW deletes a controversial segment. Alas, but not least, all of the wrestling has deleted another controversial comment from its resident rapper, Max Kaster. Fans attending the tapings for the 25th February edition of Rampage report that Kaster was talking trash on Orange Cassidy before Kaster's teammates Anthony bounds about against freshly squeezed. According to fans, Kaster spit the following.  This guy is as popular as Vladimir Putin. A given Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it's understandable that AEW felt it is best to remove the lime. However, while AEW reportedly deleted the verse, it did keep this one in. Yo, I don't like you. Anthony is about to come fight you. Best friends, very nice, very evil. But I guess you're not friends with any black people. And Max Kaster has some controversial comments in AEW, so much so that AEW President Tony Khan claims he screens Kaster's raps before they air on television. What do you think of the latest rap? Let us know in the comments down. Oh, no, man. Anything I get it, it is a very sensitive time right now. Once again, I wish to give him all my thoughts and prayers to the people of Ukraine, man. It's it's it's it's a horrible situation. So anything related to that, I would definitely try to stay away from. I understand you just wanted to stay away from it. But, um, yeah, man, it's just it's just the time we live in right now, unfortunately. And I'm just wishing the best outcome possible. And hopefully, you know, this situation does end relatively soon with less, you know, less casualties, man. It's it's war is it's it's all it ends up bad for everybody ultimately, man. But this video was interesting, man. I don't know what's going to happen with Vince McMahon if he's going to be a part of WrestleMania in that capacity. Don't really want to see it, but you never know what's going to happen. I'm interested to see what happens on the Pat McAfee show. I'm going to probably try to check that out for you guys. And Roman Reigns, Brock Lesnar, unification match at this year's WrestleMania. Will it truly be a unified championship? Will we finally get rid of the blueberry belt and get a new belt? One WWE World Heavyweight Championship belt to reign supreme. We will see what happens, man. I appreciate all the love and support you guys have been showing on the channel. You guys have been running up to like subscriptions, everything. And I thank you guys so much. We are that close to 70,000 subscribers in this year. We will hit a honey cake and I will be getting my silver play button silver plaque from YouTube. Would your guys help? So appreciate all the love and support. Roll to Santa Kay. Appreciate you all kicking me. See y'all next piece.


Suspense! Tonight Suspense brings you Mr. Richard Ney and Mr. Joseph Kearns as stars in a remarkable study in suspense, written by the distinguished contemporary English novelist, Evelyn Wall. But first, may we remind you that... In America's smartest homes and clubs, where hospitality is the last word in luxury, the first name in wine is C-R-E-S-T-A. C-L-A-N-C-A. Cresta? Blanca? Cresta Blanca. Yes, that's Cresta Blanca wines. And for the knowing tongue, Cresta Blanca has created two rare California cherries, Dry Watch and Triple Cream. Compare Cresta Blanca Dry Watch and Triple Cream with the world's finest cherries. You'll find Cresta Blanca Dry Watch and Triple Cream cherries unequaled in America, unsurpassed anywhere. Shenle's Cresta Blanca Wine Company, Livermore, California. And now, Shenle brings you Radio's Outstanding Theatre of Thrills. Suspense! Presented by Roma Wines, that's R-O-M-A. Roma Wines of Fresno, California. The stars Richard Ney and Joseph Kearns appear in Evelyn Waugh's study in Mounting Terror called The Man Who Liked Dickens. A suspense play produced, edited and directed for Shenle by William Spear. When Brenda and I broke up the marriage, it cheered the gossips and gave them something to talk about. I kept running into people who asked about Brenda and I either bought them or they bought me. One of the rare moments when the human equation is perfectly balanced. So that when Dr. Messenger told me in a club one night he was going on an expedition into the Amazon to find a buried city called Demerara, I asked to go with him. I told nobody about it except my brother Mark. I can remember little of the preparations or leaving England. All I can recall now is that when we docked near the mouth of the Orinoco, the tropics were bathed in a green and lemon splendor. How well suckled from heaven it seemed. Green hilltops sewn with daisies and the breeze was sweet and everything seemed luminous and lately sprung from the soil. I don't know when that feeling first wore off, perhaps when I began to sense that there was something wrong with the natives. Dr. Messenger had hired them with the usual trinkets and they seemed happy, but as the days wore on you knew there was some deep reservation in their minds. We crossed the headwaters and started down to look for bigger streams and they spoke to Dr. Messenger for the first time that night. They didn't want to go on. It wasn't their country and they were frightened. Dr. Messenger shouted and screamed at them and they quieted down. They quieted down and made no sound. Finally they made no sound at all in the night. I knew what had happened before Dr. Messenger burst into my tent. Wake up! Wake up! I'm awake. Come outside. Something rotten has happened. I know already. The natives have gone.  They sneaked away like shadows. Did they leave the stuff? I guess. They took only their own things. They're honest. The only decent thing they could do. No, I mean they're honest. They never intended to go on. They'll leave us this way. We don't need them though. We'll find others. We'll do it handy, we will. We'll keep looking. Right's the word, Tony. We'll keep looking. And we'll keep talking and talking and we'll dodge what we both want to say. They were alone in the jungle. What if we are? We'll move on. We've found maps and we'll do it handy. It'll take a bit of poise, that's all. No, I suppose. Dr. Messenger. About the trip and everything ahead. Yes. Do you think we'll make it? Of course we've got to. It's that simple. We've got to. Thank you.  The next morning we gathered our stocks. Set up an emergency camp on the left bank and started down the main stream. Right after breakfast, I found I had the fever. So Messenger and I had to travel in the same canoe. A part of the provisions loaded against my feet to keep me from falling out. Late that afternoon, Messenger nudged the boat ashore. There were falls up ahead and we had to carry the canoe past the danger spot. Messenger lifted me ashore and started to drag the canoe up on the bank. The cargo shifted on him and he slipped into the water. It was quite shallow in places and he caught at the rocks, but they were warm smooth and he plunged into deep water and reached the falls. The foam subsided into a great pool, almost still, and strewn with blossoms from the forest trees that stood gauntly above it. Dr. Messenger's hat floated very slowly towards the Amazon and the water closed over his bald head. Hello. My name is Todd. Here, drink it. You'll only need a bit. I have the fever. I know, but you're getting rid of it. How can you tell? If you're alive, you're getting over it. If you're dead, you're not. Thank you. You're the first stranger I've seen for a very long time. And you're the first one I've seen for a very long time. I liked him from the first. I liked him right away. Mr. Todd brought me to his house. It was near a village of Indians along the riverbank. He owned a dozen or so head of puny cattle which grazed in the savannah, a plantation of cassava, some banana and mango trees, a dog, and, unique in the neighborhood, a single barrel, breech-loading shotgun. He sat and talked to me while he gave me medicines and nursed me back to health.  My mother was an Indian and she taught me many of them. How long have you lived here in the jungle? Oh, I was born here. I've always lived here. It's a very long and lonely life. It would be for me. I've watched most of the natives grow up, some of them die. And I've tried to look after them. Then that's why they obey you so well. That reason and because I have the gun. Oh? My father was a good company. He lived to a great age, a very great age. He's not 25 years since he died. Oh, he was a man of education. Can you read? Oh, yes, of course. Oh, not everyone's so fortunate. I cannot. The only two words I know how to spell are born and died. Oh, yes? Oh, that's rather too bad. Oh, but I suppose you have much opportunity here. Oh, yes, that's just it. I have a great many books. I'll show them to you when you're better. My father left them. Oh, I see. Yes, he used to read to me. He read to me all the time. Then there was another man a few years ago, Barnabas. He read to me until he had to leave. I was very sad because he read well. And the books mean so much to me. How long ago was that? Seven years ago. He read to me every day until he left. You shall read to me when you're better. Well, I'd be delighted to. As Mrs. Bardale says to Mr. Pickwick, it is so kind of you to have so much consideration for my loneliness. Yes, you shall read to me. Mr. Tard had a soft way of speaking, as if he had learned to talk under the sounds of the jungle. And now, as he went about his work in the village, he seemed happier than I'd seen him before, as if he were alive to some great expectation. I went on recuperating, and my first day out of bed, he took me walking into the jungle. Wait, we'll have to turn back soon. Going late. Yes, it's almost four o'clock. What would it be like in London now? I can never remember which way it goes. Oh, it'd be nine o'clock. Sun comes up in the east, they get the day sooner. So we get it second hand and slightly soiled. Hey, what's the matter? That mound of dirt there. What is it? It's a grave. I told you about him. Barnabas. His name was Barnabas Washington. He's the man who read to me. You said he left. Didn't he? But you didn't say that. That way, you talked as if he really left. Did I? Maybe it's the way of saying things down here. You're an educated man, I'm not. I didn't mean that. I just thought of him as leaving. Of course I should have made it clear. He was a splendid fellow Barnabas. I liked him very much. How long was he here? Oh, quite a long time. I mean, exactly how long? I don't remember. It's quite a long time. And he died here without getting home? Oh, yes, it seems sad. He was a splendid fellow. I'm sure he was missed. Do you know you've given me an idea? Yes. I wonder if he doesn't need a marker. I think I'll build a small cross. Two of them I think want to commemorate his leaving and the other you're coming. Now that seems very odd. Most things are that old men do. I'd like to begin now. Would you care to help? No, I'm going back. I feel tired. Oh, yes, of course. Print it out for me. Will you Barnabas Washington and your name? I know how to print born and died. I'll do it later myself. Yes, now you want to rest. And tonight? Tonight I think we could begin. Begin what? You're reading to me. You feel well enough now, don't you? Yes, I feel all right. Good. Then we'll begin tonight. And it was thus that I entered my prison. A dungeon in bright sunlight. No one could imagine it. A slave to the subtlest of all tyrannies. The imprisonment of another man's mind. For Suspense. Roma Wines are bringing you Richard Ney and Joseph Kearns and the man who liked Dickens. Roma Wines' presentation tonight in Radio's Outstanding Theatre of Thrills. Suspense. Suspense. Radio's Outstanding Theatre of Thrills is presented by Roma Wines. That's R-O-M-A. Roma Wines. Those better tasting selections from the world's greatest reserves of fine wines. This is Truman Bradley with a suggestion from Roma that has helped many a hostess win high praise. Whenever friends drop in for an afternoon or evening show the warmth of your welcome by serving better tasting Roma California wines. For both host and guest there's pleasure in the tempting nut-like taste of golden amber Roma sherry, rich ruby red Roma port or mellow flame bright Roma muscatel. You'll find that everybody will cheer your choice when you serve these fine Roma wines because they do taste better. Remember, there's a better tasting Roma wine for every occasion, for every taste. So for an everyday family treat or smart hospitality at little cost always serve Roma wines. That's R-O-M-A. Roma Wines. America's favorite wines. And now Roma wines bring back to our Hollywood soundstage. Richard Ney as Anthony Last and Joseph Kearns as Mr. Todd in The Man Who Liked Dickens. A play well calculated to keep you in... Suspense. It was dark when Mr. Todd came in and we ate in silence. After the meal, he led me into his room and I saw the books for the first time. They were on a loft above his bed and tied in small bundles. He brought all the bundles in by the fire and began to unwrap them. It's been hard to keep out the worms in the ants. Oh, two are practically destroyed. Oliver and David. But there's an oil the Indians make that's useful. Oh, yes, yes. Here's one we could start with. It's in rather bad shape, but the printing's clear. You want to start with this? Oh, it doesn't matter, which we take first. Do you like that book? Nicholas Nicolby. Nicolby. Like Charles Dickens. Well, maybe something lighter to start with. Something besides Dickens, huh? There's nothing besides Dickens. You mean to say all these books? Oh, yes, every one of them by Charles Dickens. All the books he wrote are right there. Oh, but the ants destroyed too. Very sorry about that. You must like Dickens a great deal. Oh, I do. I'm very fond of him. You see, these are the only books I have ever heard. They belong to your father. Oh, yes. He used to read them to me. And then the other man, and now you. I've heard them all several times by now, but I never get tired. There's always more to be learned and noticed and so many characters and so many changes of scene and so many words. It takes a long time to read them all. More than two years. Well, I should think they'd last out my visit. Oh. Oh, I hope not. It's delightful to start again. Each time I find more to enjoy and admire. I say, shall we begin? I suppose.  I'd like it best that way. All right, let's go ahead, huh? A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. The first book, Recall to Life. It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. It was the age of wisdom. It was the epoch of intradurity. It was the season of light. It was the season of darkness. I found some pleasure in the reading for a while. It calmed me and gave me a feeling of being whole again. And the old man's delight was something to see. As I read, he followed the words soundlessly with his lips. Often, when a new Dickensian character was introduced, he'd say, repeat the name. I've forgotten him. Or, yes, yes, I remember her. Well, she dies, poor woman. Always, he was concerned with the people and nothing else. And his comments were usually simple. I think the deadlock is a very proud man, or... Mrs. Jellybee does not take enough care of her children. Almost daily now, I mentioned the subject of my departure and asked about canoes and reins and the possibility of finding guides. And one night, after I'd finished a chapter of Bleak House, look, the time's come, Mr. Todd, when I've got to think about getting back. Well, I haven't posed on you long enough. Oh, I mean it. How soon do you think I'll be able to get a boat? A boat? Yes, to leave. I appreciate all your kindness to me more than I can say. Any kindness I may have shown is amply repaid by your reading of Dickens. Now, do not let us mention that subject again. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I have too, Mr. Todd, but I must be thinking of getting back now. Oh, yes, yes. The other man was like that. I thought of it all the time, but he died before he got back. Did he, the other man, did he finish all the Dickens books? Finished them? Yes, the other man. Did he go through all of them? No, it's hard to remember. But I do recall a tale of two cities, three or four times. Three or four times? You mean he went all through and came back? Why? You said it took two years each time. Well, maybe it was three times. Oh, my memory's not so good. Mr. Todd, why did he stay? I don't know. Why did he stay all those years? Well, he never said. Forgive me, Mr. Todd, but I must press the point. When can I get a boat? There is no boat. Oh, the Indians can build one. You'll have to wait for the rain. How long will that be? Oh, a month. Two months. Well, I must speak to them then. Yes, of course, of course. Now, now, now, it's early. Do you think we could read some more tonight? Bleak House has always been a favorite mind. Influenced by Mrs. Gamp, it was decided that Mrs. Gamp should be approached without delay. I wonder if you could read that over again. It's one of the points I think Dickens leaves unclear. Oh, I'm very tired. I wonder if we could wait. Oh, yes, of course. We'll take it up tomorrow. Listen. What is it? It's the rain. The rains come, Mr. Todd. They're always done. You know what it means? Why, it means I can make preparations to go now. I can talk to the natives about building a boat. Oh, that's impossible. Why? It's impossible. The Indians won't build a boat during rainy season. It's one of their superstitions. You might have told me. Didn't I mention it? I forgot. No, you've forgotten a lot of things. Well, I'm getting old. Not too old, Mr. Todd. You've remembered to evade me. How could I evade you? But you have. And you've lied to me. You've lied to me systematically. Mr. Todd, you're holding me a prisoner. You're keeping me here against my will. But, my friend, who can... I demand to be released. You're under no restraint. You couldn't go when you're lying. You know very well I can't get away without your help. In that case, you'll have to humor an old man. Read to me another chapter. It's the Todd. I swear by anything you like. When I get to Mann House, I'll find someone to take my place. I'll pay a man to read to you. I have no needs for another man. You read so well. Then I've read for the last time. I hope not. Oh, I sincerely hope not. Well, that evening at supper, only one piece of dried meat was brought in and Mr. Todd ate alone. The next day at noon, a single plate was put before Mr. Todd. But with it lay his gun cocked on his knee as he ate. And I began reading of Martin Chesilwit. But it was different now, because I knew what lay ahead. And if I didn't then, I did after I found the scrawled note toward the back of the book. It was written with pencil and a rough hand. I, James Todd of Brazil, do swear to Bonobos Washington of Georgetown that if he finished this book, in fact, Martin Chesilwit, I will let him go back as soon as finished. And there followed a heavy pencil X. And after it, Mr. Todd made this mark, signed Bonobos Washington. The note was signed January 1929. And Bonobos Washington, and Bonobos Washington died in 1940. Well, from that moment on, I began to grow worse. I ate little and slept even less. And every day there was more Charles Dickens. A whole year had passed of our mutual friend in the old Curiosity shop. And Mr. Todd was already talking of starting over again. And then a stranger arrived in camp. A half-caste prospector, one of that lonely order of men who wander for a lifetime through the forests, tracing the streams for gold. I stood in the rain outside his window and heard them. He said there were white men a few days away, apparently on their way toward this camp. Mr. Todd was furious. When did you see them? About a week ago. And I came fast. They were coming this way? Oh, I'm sure of it. Did they ask for anybody? I didn't talk to them. Oh, thank you. Well, I'm going to send out a party to greet them. Sit there and finish your tea. I shall be long. Thank you. Look, you must help me before he comes back. Huh?  You've got to get there first. What about? I'm a prisoner. Tell them about me. Here. Here, give them this. Where is it? Where is it? Page 214. Here. All right. Now that's my name. They'll know. Just give it to them. Yes, and hurry. Don't let him know. I'll hide it on you somewhere. And hurry. Please, hurry. Because you're my last hope under heaven. Well, Mr. Todd must have sensed that too, because the next afternoon he told me that he expected I'd be leaving soon and invited me to a native feast. I agreed to go, and that was my fatal blunder. The last of all possible mistakes. At the feast they served a thick porridge. And I remember only growing warm and weak, and being carried back to Mr. Todd's. I was still weak when I woke. I was in the armchair, and found Mr. Todd rocking contentedly before his fire. Ha! Ha-ha. Are we awake? Oh, you don't look well. Not well at all. I feel rotten. That porridge doesn't seem to agree with me. I'll give you something to make you better.  You haven't seen my watch anywhere? You've missed it? Yes, I thought I was wearing it. I see, I've never slept so long. Not since you were a baby. Do you know how long? Two days. Not since. I couldn't sleep that long. But you did. It was a long time. It was a pity too, because you missed our guests. Guests?  Three men from outside Englishmen.  Then they did come. They came all the way to find you. Yes, just to find you. Touristly, they wanted to see you. I didn't think you'd mind, so I gave them a little souvenir. Your watch. You gave them my watch? You... Why, they thought... Your brother, Mark, was pleased with it. And they took some photographs of the little cross I put up to commemorate your coming. Of course, I had to alter it a little. You wrote in my death. You wrote in my death on that cross? Oh, no, no, no. You're upset. We'll have no Dickens tonight, but tomorrow night we'll start Little Dorot again. There are passages in that book I can never hear without the temptation to weep. They didn't ask questions. They didn't suspect. Who would? The note. They couldn't have missed it. What note? There was no note. They didn't show it to you then. Maybe they guessed. They didn't guess anything. Well, they'd have shown it to you. Oh, they must have understood. You tore it out of a book. What book? What book did you tear it out of? This one, by your feet. A tale of two cities. What page? What did he say? What did he say? You remember? So do you. But tell me, you can remember, repeat for him. I'll remember it all my life. Page 214. After having long been in danger of my life at the hands of the village, I've been seized with great violence and indignity and brought a long journey on foot. And I demand of heaven will he not come to deliver me but the love of heaven, the justice of generosity.  You didn't send them that. Now they'll know. They'll know what it means and they'll come back. There it is now. No. I'm here. I'm up here in the clearing. He's totally one of the natives. Now they've come back. Now, now take the book and all your books. No. Take them out of the fire. No, no, no. My book. My book. My book. No, no, no, no. Don't it be rushed. Nothing is done. No, don't put my book. My beautiful. Up here. Hurry. Hurry. Oh, the name of heaven. My book. Ah, they're all going out of fire. Hold it. No. Hold it. No, I'm discovered. I'm up here. Here. Mark, where the ground is high. Well, we left the heart of the Amazon country that night.  The howl among these was silent but tree frogs nearby set up a continuous chorus. Birds were away calling and whistling and far in the depths about them came the occasional rending and reverberation of dead wood falling among the trees. And under all of that the sound of Mr. Todd. The sound of words coming out of his mouth. A mouth that had nothing left to it but trembling and quivering. The sound of Mr. Todd sitting before the fire watching the last of Charles Dickens burn and repeating from a broken memory. It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. It was the age of wisdom. It was the age of foolishness. It was the epoch of belief. It was the epoch of incredulity. It was the season of light. It was the season of darkness. It was the spring of hope. It was the winter of despair. Suspense. The man who liked Dickens starring Richard Naye and Joseph Kearns presented by Roma Wines. That's R-O-M-A. Roma Wines. America's largest selling wines. Well, next week is National Wine Week and throughout California's famed grape-growing districts. Gay festivals will celebrate nature's rich bounty and the grape treasure from which fine Roma-California wines are created. And this year, as always, Roma is selecting and pressing only the choicest California grapes. Then Roma master vendors with ancient skills and unmatched winemaking resources will guide this luscious treasure unhurriedly to tempting perfection. When these finer, better-tasting Roma wines will be laid aside with mellow Roma wines of years before to await later selection for your pleasure from the world's greatest reserves of fine wines. That's why, when you enjoy Roma-California sherry, port, muscatel, or any Roma wine, you're always sure of better taste, unvarying high quality at reasonable cost. So when you ask for wine, insist on Roma. That's R-O-M-A. Roma wines enjoyed by more Americans than any other wine. Richard Naye will soon be seen in the Ciero production, Joan of Lorraine. Tonight's suspense play was adapted by Richard Breen from the original short story by Evelyn Wall. Next Thursday, same time, you will hear Marsha Hunt as star of Suspense. Produced and directed by William Spear for the Roma wine company of Fresno, California. In the coming week, Suspense will present such stars as Louis Jourdan, June Havoc, Dennis O'Keefe, and others. Make it a point to listen each Thursday to Suspense, Radio's outstanding Theatre of Thrills. This is CBS The Columbia Broadcasting System.


This is one of these internal evaluation issues, and a preoccupation of many people talking about evaluation. And I have a somewhat counterintuitive view on this. I don't think independence has near as much an impact on quality as most of the people in the evaluation argue. I think much of it was made of this. And I think a perfect example of the sort of confusion, or what I call the confusion, is represented in the recent piece Richard Moore, friend and colleague of mine, had in his piece on DFAT, where he updated, made some comments on where DFAT was five years after the change. In that note, I'll quote his recommendations. The head of ODE should be an external candidate on a non-renewable contract to maximize independence. You know, if you ask me what the head of OED should be, it should focus much more on quality of the person. You should get the best person available. And you should focus not so worried about whether you're going to have a tenured person or a non-tenured person. If the person's good, they should be kept. If the person's not so good, you should probably move on and find another person. So Richard and I reflected a very important theme of evaluation, which I think is simply wrong. And indeed, I think the message for DFAT, any evaluation group for an evaluation, should be to find the best person available. And more important, I think, a message of not taking people from the organization is a terrible message about the quality of people you want to do evaluation.  And the ODE has been pretty effective at bringing new people in and growing people on evaluation. And you want to assure the staff that if someone really does rise to the level, that they'll have access to the top position. So I simply want to say that remains my view. And I think it's important that it's reflected very much in my experience in the bank. The best people I saw, and as I said, I did deal with them over a period where people that from within the bank who rose to the top position. So independence and evaluation is a topic people like to talk about, but I don't think it's a very sensible topic. I want to tell a couple of things about what I've seen happen during my time in ODE, because I think it's important. The first thing I want to talk about is really what I think has become a best practice, which was a little bit, it's a bit of a hidden gem, because it wasn't, we weren't aware of it quite frankly when we began. I'll say DFAT have always had a process of doing operational evaluations within the working staff of DFAT, and so they're not the big strategic evaluations that ODE tends to concentrate on. And about four years ago, in the discussions when this was discovered, a decision was made to actually do an evaluation of that work. And I have to say, it was some nervousness on the part of the committee about doing this, because no one knew exactly what to expect. There had not been any comprehensive review. And indeed, when the review was done, it was quite interesting, because what one found was actually an important resource of good evaluation. Certainly, I would argue that consistency is not the same with strategic evaluations, and not the same oversight, but there was a lot of good evaluation work being done by operational staff. And I think this is a message that really is important to give, that DFAT both has a capacity to do ODE evaluation, but also allows and supports staff in doing operation evaluations at the working level. So to me, it's a strong message about the commitment of the resources and time of the management of DFAT, and I think it should be complimented. There's been a recent review done again, more recently. Those reviews have resulted in suggestions to consolidate the work. And I think that's important, because I think that will lead to some improvements, because very often ODE is asked to help support that work, and it also has limited resources. The other thing that happened was in the first report, the discovery was that not many of these reports were available to the public. And we pushed transparency very hard in the 90C, and as a result of that, you're now seeing a record of actually getting these reports, not just completed, but they're also all being made available to the public. And I think that's an important additional asset for the discussion of evaluation in the region. My fourth point is a point that I think, I didn't realize as much as we began with, but actually ODE has played a key role in working with particularly the management division, the aid management division, on focusing on and ensuring about the quality of oversight of DFAT operations. So this wasn't in the original terms of reference, but it's interesting, we've had a very good, we've had a very good relationship with the management division, and when issues have arisen about quality, there's been good discussion between IEC and that group. So it's been an open and constructive relationship, and I'll just give you two specific examples, because I think they reflect the sort of work that is being done to reinforce and assure quality. The first one is, you know, AQC quality. These are the reviews of individual investments over $3 million. And so there's a regular process of ODE reviewing the quality of those reports and ensuring that they meet appropriate standards. When there are weaknesses seen, there's a discussion with the working level staff, and that work, I think, has provided important signals to management about the quality of staff, about the quality of the actual projects. Two years ago, two or three years ago, when some very modest changes were made in the instructions on AQCs, all of a sudden there was a dramatic improvement in project quality by at least the ratings. And so this was something both the APE Management Division and ODE worked on. And within a year, there was an ability to go back, review what the instructions were, and get, we felt, and the APE Management Division felt more accurate and more consistent represent performance. And so you had the one example of where I think the work actually made sure that the focus on quality remained high. Second example is a very new one. There's a new acronym, FAQCs. These are the final AQCs. And historically, the instruction in originally, and I'll say it in a de-fab, was the staff had a requirement once during the life of a project to do an independent review. And this was one instance where I'm afraid my biases from the World Bank came to the fore. And fortunately, Wendy, who was also involved in this, but who's also worked in the World Bank, had the same bias. That this didn't make a lot of sense. That what would be much more useful for management would be a review at the end of, an independent review at the end of the project cycle. So that at the end of the project cycle, management would have more consistent messages, both about where investments were successful, where they were not, and where there were problems either at the country level or the sector level. And I'm pleased to say that's now been accepted. And so I think these are now a part of the quality review function. And I'm hopeful that they'll contribute again to ensuring that there's accurate views of where portfolios stand, where there are problems and where there are successes as well. My next point is just to summarize a little bit. My view that a lot of excellent work has been done. And I'm talking now not about IEC work about the work that ODE has done. Both meeting the standards of delivery that were expected, ensuring that with strategic reviews that they're all made available, as well as other important pieces of publication that they do. And so I want to emphasize that, the role that IEC in this is actually fairly modest because all the real work is done by ODE and it's been a pleasure to be associated with that work. Just a couple of things which I remain very proud of. A lot of work has been done over the last couple of years on disability. And this has been a particularly hard area because there's not a lot of work in the outside world. And I think Australia has emerged as a leader in this area. And I think the evaluation both has underlined that point. But there's also began a struggle of trying to figure out how disability work can be better reflected in the eight projects that are done. So this is a work in progress, but I think it's been an important activity. As some people know, I'm an Africanist. I spent most of my back career working on Africa. And I think ODE should be very proud of the work that was done on the Horn of African, humanity crisis in 2011. And it's important not just because it was a good piece of evaluation, but I think it's sent an important message about the capacity within DFAT in terms of its global role. DFAT's not a big actor in the African community. It wasn't even a big actor in terms of amounts in dealing with that crisis and that food crisis. But some junior DFAT staff that were on site made the decision to get involved in the crisis in an active way and to work on a coordination. And in fact, from the analysis, and I think it's accurate, played a much more effective role in improving coordination in many of the longer time big actors in the food business in East Africa. And so I think it was a clear discovery of a capacity that Australia does have to both work effectively with other donors, but also to play above its weight in terms of its role on an important humanitarian issue. So I think it was a clear message there. Very proud of the first work that went completely through the process on Australian volunteers. We did have a discussion. It was the first document that was discussed. There was some criticisms and some sensitivities, but in the end, everybody felt better because it was given an award as an excellent piece of evaluation in the annual review. But I mean, I think there are two messages. He still doesn't agree. I think there are two messages. One, this issue of actually having these meetings with your comments and inputs I think is very important. Evaluation doesn't get this much attention more generally and actually I'll come back to that. The second point I was gonna make on documentation is that he doesn't only do strategic evaluations. They have a full range of other work that they do, both to monitor the work that's going on. They do regularly updates on evaluation policy to make sure people know what's going on. Policy notes come out and this review of past recommendations, I think, as I mentioned before, is an important aspect of the follow up on the learning. And finally, the spot check work which is done on AQC has been, I think, an important part of the overall quality function. I'll comment a little bit on the AAMU issue because I think that is another best practice. I mean, I'm a little bit surprised at your crowd today. There aren't many places that evaluation gets this level of attention. So I'm certainly pleasing to me to see that. Generally, attention falls very much on the sideline. And I think the AAMU defects interaction to put together these on a regular basis has been an important way of both sharing lessons from experience but also encouraging people to take a little bit more about evaluation. And as I said, it's been an opportunity to critique and to make suggestions about how reports can be improved. So I think all of those are important aspects and I wanna both express my appreciation for the AAMU that was done on that front but also really express my hope that this can continue to be built on and sustained because I think it's a somewhat unique. I haven't been able to find any other examples of where this sort of support has been given to evaluation in other areas. I would be dishonest if I didn't suggest some of the issues that I think still remain. These are issues that we spend time on so it's not gonna surprise anyone on the DFAT side. And they're really free. One is if you look at most of the evaluations somewhere it says they're qualitative evaluations. And the explanations are many but I worked at the World Bank. I was supposed to be an economist in the World Bank and I just think you gotta do more work on the quantitative side to produce credible evaluations. There are some evaluations that are good job on that. Some work was done on roads in Indonesia which I think was excellent work on evaluation putting in place rates of return. But this is an issue that we've raised often in the IEC meetings. In yesterday's meeting we had a discussion of one case where we think it's coming to fruition in terms of the evaluation of teacher training where it is gonna be an attempt to produce some real data so that judgments can be made about the impact of teacher training on the performance of students. And I just make the general observation that I think is an issue that has to be continuously pressed. Related to that is the issue of data. And I have to say here I contrast all the time in discussing data, macro data and sectoral data. The colleagues across the street from where I worked in Washington, the IMF have worked for now for over 75 years on improving the quality of macro data. They do it in every country. They acknowledge their countries with stronger weaker data but they retain that responsibility and so you have systematic and consistent macro data. It wouldn't weaknesses but it's there. When you go over to the non-financial, non-macroside, the data situation globally is a mess and it's a mess particularly in low income countries. So when you look at data sets and as I said I worked in Africa, you look in Africa, you look in the Pacific, you know what you see are blind spaces and what you see are spaces with footnotes which says the latest data 2013. And I think data is really important for policy work to make judgments about the impacts of policy, how things have changed. And I think the data issues and getting more data on the table is important. There's not only an evaluation issue, I think it's a broader issue in respect to analysis and how analysis is done and I'll come back to that. My third issue is if there's an area I'm a bit disappointed we haven't done as many country studies as I think should be done by the ODE. Country studies really represent that you give signals about a different unit of account in a project study and it's an important unit of account because I think once you draw lessons more broadly from project experience it can well help understanding where problems and issues are and it can provide an environment for discussions with not just the counterparts at the sector level but also the important counterparts at ministries of finance in prime minister's office to try to bring about broader reform in countries. So these are three areas we've talked about a lot. I think I can point to examples of where there's been progress but I think these are still a work in progress which certainly I expect IEC to continue to focus on in the future. And I'm sure with Wendy there that's going to happen. A couple of issues, I said I'd talk a couple of issues about broader concerns about, not concerns but issues that I see about DFAT, about the aid program. And it's a spiritual modest list because I don't consider myself an expert on DFAT or Australian aid but I've left a couple things I wanted to comment on. The first one is the level of aid and that's been an interesting issue during my tenure where I think I have sympathy with some of the criticisms about the declines but I have to make one positive observation before I come back to some of the concerns that have emerged as a result. The positive observation is just looking at it as a budget issue and how the budget issue was handled. I'm quite impressed with the way the cuts were handled. If you look at the first round of cuts those were largely handled by a sort of consolidation to focus on regional issues, focus on Asia and Pacific as well. And I thought that was a sensible way as a former budget person in the bank. I thought that was a sensible way to deal with that. The second cut was handled in a way that I was actually impressed with because as it was being discussed the one question I had is, does Indonesia get hit? Because Indonesia's had a long and important relationship with Australia. It's an important economy in the region but also Indonesia has gotten more prosperous and probably is less dependent on aid. So do you go down the road of simply endorsing past history or do you reflect the recent developments and actually force a cut in Indonesia and defect did force a cut on Indonesia? So I saw two cutbacks which given the decisions the actual budget allocations I was impressed with. At the same time I think there's been a cost to this and it's not the cost that people so often focus on in my view. The cost people focus on the macro numbers. We're giving some percentage of aid and it's reduced to another percentage. That is a cost certainly I don't disagree with that but out of the school that says development comes not just through money but also through policy change and so money alone doesn't impress me that much. But at the same time I think there have been real costs and I just want to underline from my experience a couple of them. You know the removal I feel personally the removal from Africa was a cost but I have a more subtle point I think more important to that. In my experience the government didn't always like it but I can point a hell of a lot of experiences where African challenges and Pacific challenges look alike and I think cutting off that experience has been done at some cost. For two reasons, one because you've got more countries and they're bigger in Africa and so you have a broader range of experiences which come to the table but also because I've just seen things that have happened in Africa that haven't happened yet in the Pacific and vice versa. But one of the things that I've seen in Africa everybody in the Pacific is talking about the private sector, the bigger role of the private sector. But one of these have happened in Africa that hasn't happened in the Pacific is there's a lot of private investment going into self-standing solar programs in rural areas which are totally self-standing, self-financing. And I've done some work in the last six months in the Pacific and nobody's doing that and there's still major challenges of delivering electricity in rural areas in the Pacific. And if the choice is between doing that through governments which already have financial constraints or being able to bring in a private sector to do it I think it's something that is actually important advice for the region. So that's one thing that I feel. The other is that you saw a significant reduction in Australian participation in global programs and global interventions. The one I know the most about is Australia expecting to become a major donor in the global education front and not essentially got precluded by the cuts. A final comment is a more general one that for a while Australia was getting a lot of attention and interest from the outside. And there were a lot of visits and maybe sometimes for the wrong reason maybe people were coming to see if they could tap into some of the additional funds. But the point is I saw much more activity of people coming in from the outside including said with a little embarrassment from the World Bank. But the point is being in place where there's noise and there's interest and there's enthusiasm and there's all the resources is not a bad place to be for working on development. So I think in all three of these areas I think there have been costs. And again it's not so much about the aggregate cuts it's just about the messages and what had to be dealt with as a consequence. My final comment, my final broad comment is about economics. You know I come from an institution that's well known to be dominated by economics but I have to say I am still consistently taken back by the limited economic skills in the Australian aid system. And it's important for the programs you're working on. I mean growth in the Pacific is the issue. If you can get growth I'm not one that's gonna argue every country's gonna be sustainable. But I think the right challenge is our government's working to do what they can do to improve their environment, their policies and their positions. And you know that challenge is a real one. And I think the need economists to work both on the growth issue but more generally on policy issues economists have a useful role to play. I'm saying this in spite of the fact that I think economists in my home country are there embarrassing themselves constantly with poor analysis and poor policy recommendations. But I hope we can be higher standards than that in the development field. And I do feel, I mean I've met with every chief economist since I started working on the Pacific in 2008. And everybody agrees we need more economists but it hasn't happened. I also think economists are a vital part of getting some of this work done on financial issues and on quantitative work to support the work on projects. And economists play an important role in that. So it's a message that I think everybody gets tired of me talking about. I always say where are the economists? I think there has been an effort certainly under the work program of Modi to ensure that when there's a case for economists that they are an important part of the team. But I just think it's more general that this is a shortage in the system. I have about six comments on the Pacific challenge to conclude as I said this is an area that I've been spending some time. When I went to work in East Asia I didn't think the bank was taking the Pacific very seriously. And so in that job I think I can say with a straight face that I certainly encourage more work there and more attention there. And I'll come to that because a lot more has happened since I was there than when I was there. So I want to be honest about that. But as I've emphasized I think the growth issue is key. Getting growth up in the Pacific is key. The slow growths of the past are not going to provide for the types and the levels of quality of life that people want to achieve. As related to this I think the private sector challenge is key. And here again I feel a very strong similarity between what I see in the Pacific and what I saw in Africa. Every government now is sensible enough to say that donors bias the private sector is important. Yes we're focusing on the private sector. And so what I do these days is actually I don't always push banker IFC work but I always go look at the doing business numbers.  It was in the top 30. Today it's around 100. When you look at all the other countries in the region just like the countries in Africa they all fall in 100 plus or around 100. And what that shows I think are two things. One is the absolute performance isn't very good. But I think more important it's a message about relative performance and what's been done because you know the doing business stuff is not magic and it has to be always handled with some judgment and perspective. But what it does show is some countries move up and other countries move down. So you see relative performance where I think it's a fairly reliable guy. And you know a country in Africa who wanted it was you know in the high commitment hundreds you know is now in the top 30 because they've really worked hard on improving policies for the private sector and it's showing up on the roadside. So again, that linkage. My third point is to come back to the use of the the MDBs in particular the Asian Bank and the World Bank. And I have to compliment the government of Australia here. I think they've done a really good job of waking up the MDBs with respect to the Pacific and getting involved. Over the last five years, ADB support and ADB had a more traditional relationship. But ADB has doubled its support. The World Bank has tripled its support from a lower base than ADB. And so for the first time you really have credible engagement in the region by the two major MDBs. And so I'm hopeful that they can certainly play a role. They now have big offices in Sydney, big regional office in Suva, increasingly putting staff in individual countries to work with the countries under reforms. And I think that's an asset. And I give the Australian government enormous credit for this because certainly during my time I saw the emphasis that's obviously been sustained. If anything become more effective subsequent to my time. So I think it's an important aspect. One of the things that I see, it's hard to see from the region but I see as a comparative basis is when I was country director in 10ths of the year, Uganda, I had 30 donors out there. All of them had money. And you work in the Pacific and it's four or five donors. And of course you face sometimes the challenge, sometimes the asset of always being the biggest person in the room. So I think by engaging the MDBs it helps because they bring experience from outside but also because they're bringing funds. One of the things the World Bank has just done is made Fiji eligible for IDA for the first time. And I think that's gonna help increase the program that the bank can do in Fiji. Fourth point, capacity building. Certainly the center's doing a lot of this with respect to some of the neighboring countries. I'm a big fan of that. But I think more generally and I feel the same way about Africa, an enormous push was made in independence in these countries. And that generation is starting to leave. And these are some of the senior good people in these countries. And for a variety of reasons, I think there are challenges for the next generation that haven't been very effectively addressed by the international community. So I'm a big believer in trying to think through this issue. There's always frustration when people say, ah, we've done all of these scholarships. The two observations I always make is one, that you've gotta be more selective and identifying people. And two, I think the effort is too broad. I think we've gotta make a decision to focus on some key skills and make sure those skills are properly supported. And this gets people upset when I start discussing which areas, because I always begin with economists of course. But the point is that I think as I look at donor programs generally, they've treated low income countries in a way too often that you were trying to replicate capacity that existed in countries of much higher levels of income. And that dispersion has resulted in not so consistent capacity areas where you really do need capacity. And high level capacity deal effectively in today's world. So, as I said, I think capacity is still an issue. I have to highlight the work being done here on labor mobility. I think it's really important in the context of the global climate change and some of the other issues. The bank had done some early work on this largely with New Zealand and I think that it's been picked up particularly here is very important. Obviously climate change is a critical issue in the region. I was hopeful that new instruments were going to bring a lot of new resources. I was never one to believe these numbers of 100 billion a year. Those were completely fabricated numbers, basically counting anything anybody did on anything as support for climate change. I've been a little disappointed that the institutions haven't picked up as quickly as one would have hoped, but there clearly is additional resources. And what I find interesting is, you know, on the ADV and World Bank side, their view, which I think is the right view, is that if the institutional problems continue, they're prepared to scale up and use more of their resources on this because it's such a critical issue. Just a complete issue for the region. And finally, as I said, you know, I think this African story and the interactions and strengthening those debate, you know, some important contributions on both sides.  And when I joined the East Asia region and the bank, they produced all these briefing books, none of which I look at. But very shortly after I joined Bob Zellick, the president of the bank, was coming to Australia. He was coming to an APEC meeting. He had been involved in the formation of APEC. So I had this nostalgia. So I accompanied him and then, you're on the plane, it's a long ride. Once you read the briefing book, and I remember the exact number, which I thought had to be the state, that the average per capita assistance to the Pacific was $315. You know, I was a hero in East Africa if I raised $50 per capita, I mean, I was a hero. And so that was what, you know, made this impression on me very clearly. You know, it is an A-dependent region and there are some linkages that can be exploited. I'll conclude by making a couple of points. First of all, I thank Wendy and Steven who are my counterparts. Steven for the best four-year, Wendy from beginning. We've had a good relationship, everyone's still out. We are you, but we are for it. And we've always managed to give consistent messages. And I think their part of that has been key. And finally, I think OED, there are a lot of OED. I did it. This is an inside joke. For my first four years in IEC, I kept talking about OED instead of OED. OED? OED? OED? The Operations Evaluations Department in the World Bank. So I couldn't deal with it. But I could much better at that. Now I've screwed up, but I apologize. That's a public statement. But I wanna thank the work that's been going on. We've really had probably two or three generations now stay up in OED. And I think the quality has been sustained and built, I think, to work. And they, as I said, they do all the work with respect to the evaluations. We certainly are in a privileged position of being able to comment with Missouri. But I think, and I'm sure you can be thankful, that it has a very good group of people working on evaluation within the development side. And that group is given appropriate support within DFAT. So I've enjoyed my time. And I guess I'm available for questions or comments. It's very much for the gym, I'm sure the economists in the room are super happy. I'm very proud of the International Development Economics offerings at the Croppett School, if anyone wants to make a shift. So we do have a little amount of time for questions. So please do use the microphone though, because we are recording this session of DFAT Internet. So, any starter? Thanks for the talk. I was wondering how the World Bank deals with evaluations where you have a simple religion in this, but you have 15 programs, and all the programs are insurrated, and how do you evaluate this impact of the single program? And that's obviously a very difficult part of the question of wondering how the World Bank dealt with those issues. No, let's take a couple. Okay, we'll take a couple. Thank you. My question is about your seven-year summary of OBE work. What success in improving the quality of the M&E frameworks in individual programs, things like baselines, realism, attributions? Thank you, Jim. We miss you very much. I just wanted to ask you about a couple of things. First of all, do you have a comment about country ownership? Country ownership of the monitoring evaluation systems that belong to individual activities, but also country ownership when it comes to evaluation and what that role should be, what OBE's role should be relative to country ownership? And the other thing I'd like to hear your comments on is that Australia, if the local government is elected, is talking about an evaluated general office, that would exist as an independent office in the company and system, I wonder what your thoughts were about and evaluate the general? First to start with a question, particularly in the World Bank, I mean, the evaluation board is much bigger. So you're producing scores of reports, both at the strategic level, but also enormous amounts of the transaction level. The bank does, to make it related to the FAQ policy change that I talked about, the bank has every test manager complete in evaluation at the end of a project and then has a formal review by the independent evaluation group. So there's much more going on in the bank. It has to be both do things at the macro level and do more targeted evaluations in a way that I think is harder with the operational size of the fact. It doesn't have to make too many hard choices in that respect. The big choices, I mean, I think the one issue that we have a new director general and she's struggling with what the priority should be. I think the big question in the bank is evaluation move from a big focus on investments and quality of the program to a lot more focus on less focused discussions on bank procedures. And I think it's gonna be interesting to see how she reacts, but my suspicion is she's gonna go back to be a bit more traditional because you had IG commentating on sort of everything the bank management did. And the bank management, in my view, wasn't particularly impressed with that. So it has the capacity and it certainly does do both broader studies but also is able to do them and has a lot more flexibility than the effect to do that. M&E, well I'm gonna join M&E and the discussion on country ownership and because I have a somewhat eclectic view on this, it's not the view of most agencies including the World Bank. An enormous amount is spent on M&E in individual projects by all donors. And yet, the performance is not still including in Australia, including the World Bank. And I think I've discovered the reason for that and worked hard in the bank to convince people that I should be listened to or wasn't very successful. The point I made was in the end, the ownership is the key thing. And if you look at a minister or PS, why would they be interested in M&E for an individual bank project or an individual Austrian project? The issue is to get a broader management system and a broader data system actually works. And so the data thing that I talked about is part of it and it's getting more attention in the bank now because the bank sees these weaknesses and I think the whole issue of big data has put pressure on shouldn't development be thinking more about this than it has historically. So I've been a big believer in if you're interested in the ownership question, you should be developing government systems to monitor what's going on generally. And as part of that, yes, have some ability to do some granular work. But that's not where the money goes right now. The money goes, everybody tries to build projects just in the monitoring evaluation systems.  We need better data on the project. But I think it's a get the overall system going better. It's a weakness. So I have a view on that. It's not an accepted view. We certainly spend time and I can see talking about grooming data. It's an issue with management and it's certainly a concern of the management that it gets. But on that I'm afraid we'll see that the fat face is exactly the same problems that all the other donors do. And it's a very mixed record as it was. And as I said, I have a logical explanation for it but the traction of that explanation has not been very effective. Okay, evaluator general, it's interesting. During my seven years, certainly more than five times we've been called by other parts of the government to say, what are you doing? Why is it useful? We go to those meetings. We have interesting discussions. The conclusion I reach from that is that in order to evaluate general whatever you want to call this probably makes sense. Because right now, if you ask me honestly, the aid program is under a much more serious microscope than the rest of the government program that has emerged in these discussions I've had. Now, in hardly it's a function of aid generally has emphasized the role of evaluation more than most government programs and has strength and it has weaknesses. But I think it would probably be constructive that some other groups be subjected to this sort of discipline and other expenditure items that you have in the aid program. I also have to say that in DFAT experience you've got enormous support from the leadership of DFAT. And the concern that emerges in that is a concern to make sure that all the evaluation doesn't simply focus on aid. That there are other parts of DFAT that could also use some attention and focus in terms of evaluation. So I'm impressed at least within the ministry, at least with the secretary, there's a clear sense that she's giving this priority who wants to see better work in this area. Now I'm sure knowing diplomats as I do, you'll have long explanations of why you can't do evaluation, so we'll see. But my instincts are clever people could probably produce some interesting observations about what works and what doesn't. We do have time for another set of questions. Hi, thank you. And earlier on you mentioned the operational staff doing evaluations in DFAT. And I think you referred to it as a hidden gem in the department. What do you think are the relative strengths of operational areas doing, monitoring and evaluation work and specific evaluation areas doing that work? And if you were to build the ideal system, how would those two things be next? Jim, I just wanted to thank you on behalf of the AU for your engagement over the years and your contribution. I can still remember when you were announced, which I think was on the budget line. And of course we hope you'll still continue to visit and contribute to your time. But I just wanted to ask, you're probably the only person associated with the A program who's doing the same job now. Who were you in 2012? I just wanted to give you a good reflect on differences. You know, the means of bishops, but sort of government and of course from Aussage to DFAT. So any questions on that was good. You're engaged and I'm sure we'll interest us. Thank you, Kim, we're a new kind of Indigenous affairs. We've been very lucky to be able to follow in the work of your experience because you are a leader in the approach and the ODE takes I think in the Canberra Public Service. So it's been really inspiring to see how you've done what you've done with the community. I wanted to just pick up on the issue of independence that you mentioned and you focused I think on the independence of the head of ODE. And I wondered if there were other aspects of independence versus fully that you were going to elaborate on reflection. Because I think there's a lot more to it in terms of the independence, which is used as a flag I guess for something that's high quality and expertise in an independent external evaluator. But I don't think the world is quite that simple and I think everyone is subject to various forces which make us do whatever we do. So I think there are lots of risks on the side. So Mike, do you have any reflections on that? I'll talk about the positive side of independence and get away with some of these narrow ideas because I agree with that. Let me start our self-evaluation. You know, I'm a big believer in self-evaluation because there's one way to ensure more direct learning that people actually do the work. So in that sense, I think the operational work is very good. Within DFAT, it's often an interaction with ODE staff. And so you do have an interaction. They reach out to ODE for help. And so I think it's quite a constructive, quite a healthy piece of the evaluation puzzle, which as I said, was not really elaborating on or explained when we started doing this. You always have to make choices and you still have to deliver your broader strategic program. And so there are constraints. My instinct, but if I was asked where I would put more money now is I think DFAT has to be better at ensuring that the lessons that are learned are more broadly disseminated across staff. And it's a tough issue because it means taking staff and I'll actually come back to this on Steve's question because I do have some views on what's happened as a result of the change. So I just think you gotta encourage self-evaluation. What you gotta recognize, it can't be all self-evaluation because you do want someone to be over people's shoulders. You need a mix. And I think DFAT in the presence of this situation has a very nice mix. Now, Steve's asked a hard question, which is what I would have expected. I'll say one thing where I agree with Richard Moore's analysis. The government has a focus on reducing the number of staff in the bureaucracy. And this is pretty common now in these countries these days. And I think there's an issue there with respect to the aid side because in the end you had an organization focusing exclusively on aid and the delivery of aid.  So I worry what's happening. Richard talked about this, is that there's a movement of resources in an overall more constrained situation which means less resources are going to the aid program. So I worry about that because first of all, it's a different business. And interestingly, it involves a lot more resources. I mean, when the reorganization first happened, I figured I better take a look at what this DFAT is about. And DFAT's main resource issues are about maintaining the quality of embassies and the security of staff. That's a very different business from trying to do development to cross Pacific and particularly of trying to do it in the Pacific. So I think that's challenge. And I think that's the big one. And I hear the rumors of what different people were saying and doing about aid. So I'll leave that to you in terms of those discussions. But I hope there's an ability to do serious analysis of that issue so that there's a confidence that the staff will be included in place to properly oversee the program. I've had to learn a lot because it's a very different system than the World Bank. And the World Bank, we make the governments do the projects. Now, the consequence of that is that I think you're better on the policy side, a little bit better on the Basque building, but everything takes a lot longer. You know, it's sort of a quiet secret that ADB and the Bank take longer to do things than most bilaterals. Because bilaterals traditionally use the Americans and the Australians have a model and heavily focuses on bringing contractors to it. So I can do a long speech on the relative strengths of weaknesses. I won't. But in that piece that they're doing, you've got to have the capacity to oversee contractors. And I will say that Australia nicely complements technical assistance to that work so it doesn't take no more working with the bar and strengthening the borrower. But again, that takes time and resources. And if those resources aren't there, the capacity thing is probably the first thing that will slip. The next thing will slip as the analytic work that's done. And in the end, you'll still be doing projects, but they won't be as effective. And you won't be dealing with what I think are the key issues, the underlying policy issues. So you can leave all of those to the World Bank and the ADB, but I don't think that's a good strategy. I think you have some advantages in working in the region that are important and should be exploited. Now, I was tough on independence because I was caricaturing what so many people talk about. But on a small line, you want independent people. You don't want people to come in the room and feeling they have an obligation either to the bosses or to someone else. And it's a tough issue. I can honestly say we've never had anything edited. We've never been told we have to change anything in the analysis we've done. It's been done by the ADB, but they are members of DFAT. I recognize that at times it's going to make them think about some of the judgment and issues. But I think it's of course pretty high on the independence front. I've seen no problem of management interference or management questioning of what was done. And I think most likely that the work that emerged on equality issues emerged sort of quietly and effectively. We were not kept out of the problem. We raised an issue, people invited us in and said, we're worried about this issue as well. Do you have any suggestions? So I feel the independence is pretty robust factor in DFAT. And I always say, you get so independent. I mean, this is the story of what the UK did. Actually, just as I was coming to head IDC, the UK essentially threw out the IDC model and went and set up a very small group of people that were part-time, they were going to oversee consultants doing work. And so I was asked in the early discussions with, when it was still on stage, should we be thinking about that? And my reaction was very strong. I said, look, this is going to be disaster. I said, what's going to happen is consultants are going to think it's their job to criticize DFAT, which they're good consultants in the UK. So they'll do that. DFAT will then have no choice, but not be constructive in response, but fight like they'll approve those observations wrong. And that's exactly what happened. Now, interestingly, the woman who's now head of the IDG went over to that group and actually really changed the incentives and got away from the model of using outside consultants but had a model which much more liked what DFAT is using. And so she was able to turn the program around, but it goes to the point that you could push independence to a point that you're dysfunctional in terms of actually working within the system. And as I said, I have no fear of that particular problem, given my experience, though, that's something. Wonderful. I think we will have to go up to a close then. I just want to say a few quick thank yous. I want to thank half the leads of the Office of Development and Effectiveness for partnering with us again on this event. It's a great opportunity for us to bring you and have you take on Australian aid. I would also just like that we had a look up this week by Rob Christie from ODE on performance culture on Australian aid. So if you haven't read that, we'd like a deep wrap to take. I'm sure we can wrap it today. Do check out the blog at deadpolicy.org. It will definitely be helpful. I'm going to see more events together with ODE on so past pesky tech up here it is. But most of all, I would like to thank Jim, who, as Steven noted, has come to the centre many, many times over the years. I've been at the centre six years, so you're probably coming a little bit more than me, but you're definitely one of the visitors that we really look forward to welcoming on, you know, once or twice a year and seeing you and hearing your perspective. So please do join me in thanking him and wishing him the best on his next visit. Thank you.