Daily Archives: May 25, 2018

My Chakra today

My Chakra today

My Chakra today

FBI warns Russians hacked hundreds of thousands of routers – AOL News

Search The Web
Search Aol.com

Trumps first 100 days
Go now
FBI warns Russians hacked hundreds of thousands of routers

Thomson Reuters
May 25th 2018 2:07PM

WASHINGTON, May 25 (Reuters) – The FBI warned on Friday that Russian computer hackers had compromised hundreds of thousands of home and office routers and could collect user information or shut down network traffic.

The U.S. law enforcement agency urged the owners of many brands of routers to turn them off and on again and download updates from the manufacturer to protect themselves.

The warning followed a court order Wednesday that allowed the FBI to seize a website that the hackers planned to use to give instructions to the routers. Though that cut off malicious communications, it still left the routers infected, and Friday’s warning was aimed at cleaning up those machines.

Infections were detected in more than 50 countries, though the primary target for further actions was probably Ukraine, the site of many recent infections and a longtime cyberwarfare battleground.

RELATED: Trump tweets about Russia meddling in 2016 election

Slideshow preview image
Trump tweets about Russia meddling in 2016 election
1/6 Share:
Loading SVG
2/6 Share:
Loading SVG
3/6 Share:
Loading SVG
4/6 Share:
Loading SVG
5/6 Share:
Loading SVG
6/6 Share:
Loading SVG
Up Next
A look at the day Trump cancelled the North Korea summit
Trump welcomes home 3 US prisoners freed by North Korea
A year of turmoil in Venezuela
Kim Jong Un through the years
In obtaining the court order, the Justice Department said the hackers involved were in a group called Sofacy that answered to the Russian government.

Sofacy, also known as APT28 and Fancy Bear, has been blamed for many of the most dramatic Russian hacks, including that of the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign.

Earlier, Cisco Systems Inc said the hacking campaign targeted devices from Belkin International’s Linksys, MikroTik, Netgear Inc, TP-Link and QNAP.

Cisco shared the technical details of its investigation with the U.S. and Ukrainian governments. Western experts say Russia has conducted a series of attacks against companies in Ukraine for more than a year amid armed hostilities between the two countries, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and at least one electricity blackout.

The Kremlin on Thursday denied the Ukrainian government’s accusation that Russia was planning a cyber attack on Ukrainian state bodies and private companies ahead of the Champions League soccer final in Kiev on Saturday.

“The size and scope of the infrastructure by VPNFilter malware is significant,” the FBI said, adding that it is capable of rendering peoples’ routers “inoperable.”

It said the malware is hard to detect, due to encryption and other tactics.

The FBI urged people to reboot their devices to temporarily disrupt the malware and help identify infected devices.

People should also consider disabling remote-management settings, changing passwords and upgrading to the latest firmware. (Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch and Joseph Menn; Editing by David Gregorio)

More from Aol.com:
Trump admits he didn’t have time to get Melania a birthday present
Kellyanne Conway scoffs at claim that she’s the biggest White House leaker
Melania Trump reads to children, President Trump touts the economy at White House Easter Egg Roll

Russian Hackers
by Taboola Promoted Links
Here’s How Much An Online Degree Should Cost
Sponsored Links
Video from Florida rally sparks serious concern for Melania Trump
Do This Before Your Next Mortgage Payment (It’s Genius!)
The Easy Loan Site Mortgage Quotes
3 college students arrested after prostitution sting in Florida
California: Best & Worst Refinance Mortgage Companies of 2018
26 teenage girls found dead at sea

More To Explore
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Instagram Follow us via newsletter Follow us via RSS Follow us on mobile
© 2018 Oath Inc. All rights reserved.

AOL: An Oath brand

Tuscany, Italy !

Tuscany, Italy !

Tuscany, Italy !

Într-o zi de sfârșit de mai de pe la Breaza Făgăraşului: Bună dimineața!

Într-o zi de sfârșit de mai de pe la Breaza Făgăraşului: Bună dimineața!

Într-o zi de sfârșit de mai de pe la Breaza Făgăraşului: Bună dimineața!

Happy Memorial Day in Peace for all!: Watch “Auld Lang Syne (With Lyrics and English Translation)” on YouTube

Caspar David Friedrich – 1810

Caspar David Friedrich - 1810

Caspar David Friedrich – 1810

Stephen Alford: London’s Triumph | Folger Shakespeare Library


Photo of Stephen Alford by Maxine Fletcher

Stephen Alford: London’s Triumph

Photo of Stephen Alford by Maxine Fletcher
Shakespeare Unlimited: Episode 97
London in the time of William Shakespeare was a city in the midst of a phenomenal metamorphosis. During the course of Shakespeare’s professional life, the city experienced a meteoric transition, rocketing from the capital of the hinterlands to a cosmopolitan city on its way to becoming the capital of the western world.

Stephen Alford, a professor of early modern British history at the University of Leeds, writes about this transition in his book London’s Triumph: Merchants, Adventurers, and Money in Shakespeare’s City, which was published by Bloomsbury USA in 2017. He was interviewed for this podcast by Barbara Bogaev.

Listen on iTunes, Google Play, SoundCloud, or NPR One.

From the Shakespeare Unlimited podcast series. Published May 15, 2018. © Folger Shakespeare Library. All rights reserved. This podcast episode, Wander Up and Down to View the City, was produced by Richard Paul. Garland Scott is the associate producer. It was edited by Gail Kern Paster and Esther Ferington. Esther French is the web producer. We had help from Andrew Feliciano at Voice Trax West in Studio City, California, and Gareth Dant, the University of Leeds Media Relations Manager, and Simon Moore, the University’s Communications Assistant.

Previous: The Astor Place Riot

MICHAEL WITMORE: No one writes in a vacuum. The places where writers sit inevitably shape the characters they create and the stories they tell. Well, here’s the story of a place … it is a place filled with memorable characters. One of them was a great entrepreneur. One of them was the first Englishman to set foot in Russia. One of them was Queen Elizabeth, and one of them … was Shakespeare.


From the Folger Shakespeare Library, this is Shakespeare Unlimited. I’m Michael Witmore, the Folger’s Director. While what we know about William Shakespeare is about as much as we would about any middle-class Englishman of his time …. there is plenty that’s known about his stomping grounds. London in the time of Shakespeare was a city in the midst of a phenomenal metamorphosis. During the course of Shakespeare’s professional life, the city experienced a meteoric transition, rocketing from the capital of the hinterlands to a cosmopolitan city on its way to becoming the capital of the western world.

Stephen Alford, a professor of early modern British history at the University of Leeds, tells the story of this breathtaking rise in his new book, London’s Triumph: Merchants, Adventurers, and Money in Shakespeare’s City. He came in recently to talk about a place that Shakespeare helped shape and one that clearly helped shape Shakespeare. We call this podcast Wander Up and Down to View the City. Stephen Alford is interviewed by Barbara Bogaev.

BARBARA BOGAEV: I didn’t realize until I read your book just how explosive and dramatic London’s growth was heading into Shakespeare’s time. And, for instance, you write that England in 1500 was a marginal backwater, that English was a minor language, and that Spain and Portugal had practically carved up the whole world between them. Why don’t you flesh out the rest of this picture of England for us at this time to give us a baseline.

STEPHEN ALFORD: The baseline is that England was a second, third-rate, marginal power, on the fringes of the European mainstream. It’s connected to Europe through all kinds of interesting, but still very early in developing, intellectual networks. London is a mercantile, satellite of Antwerp. That’s where deals were done, and London merchants went over to Antwerp to sell their cloths. So it’s still a kingdom that is beginning to kind of find its feet. And, in many ways, it’s kind of being pushed back. Calais is the final outpost of spoken English and of English power, but Calais is lost to the French in 1558. So we’re thinking about a kingdom that is very much on the margins.

BOGAEV: But then, just a century later, as you write, London is booming, and you have this amazing population explosion.


BOGAEV: Population is quadrupled practically, right? And, you have these ships full of silk and caviar and tobacco practically clogging the Thames. And, it was a cosmopolitan place with this thriving exchange and global reach. So just simply addressing population, how did that happen given, as you say, that there was a very high rate of mortality in London, specifically, and it really seemed like all the odds were stocked against the city.

ALFORD: It’s immigration. And, that’s one of the key strands of the whole picture and the whole story. Immigration from abroad, which was a hot topic, with strangers, with foreigners fleeing persecution in France, in the low countries, the Netherlands, Belgium and finding new homes. But also, I think the story of London is one of an internal immigration. Really thousands upon thousands of very ordinary people seeking work, seeing livelihood, escaping the countryside, make their way into the city, especially in the second half of the 16th century.

And, London acted as an enormous kind of processor of human capital. It needed people to keep the city running. The merchants’ companies needed apprentices and drew those apprentices from all over the kingdom so that the city, in a sense, sort of drags people into it. And, that not only kind of counterweights those deep problems of plague, disease, low birth rate, but it kind of accelerates the population and really in a remarkable way.

BOGAEV: So you have people flooding in from all over Europe, but also all over England. And, as you say…


BOGAEV: Many of them are religious refugees fleeing religious persecution. I want to dig into that a little bit. Why was London such an attractive haven?

ALFORD: Protection was offered by Edward VI, by Elizabeth I. London, I think, was attractive also because it was, of course, a commercial center and many of these strangers had skills that London needed. So printing, for example. Skilled printers from the low countries were able to help London printers kind of improve their skill set and the quality of what they’re able to produce.

BOGAEV: And, pulling the lens back a little bit, was the English Reformation done is such a different way than the European Reformation that England itself was a haven?

ALFORD: Yes. I mean, the texture of the Reformations across Europe are very different. I think the great attractiveness of the English scene was its relative peacefulness. That’s not how it felt at the time. Elizabethan politicians, counselors of the Queen, felt that theirs was a kingdom that was pretty much from the beginning, always under threat; they sensed that invasion, catastrophe, were just around the corner, and yet, they’re able to kind of maintain peace. And, it’s so different to the civil wars of France or the reality of Spanish armies, Catholic armies, moving through to crush Protestant opposition in the Netherlands.

BOGAEV: So you had these religious refugees just flooding in from all over Europe and Africa, as well, right? And, you give an example of London’s diversity at the time. The list includes French merchants and Dutch craftsmen and Italians who had bowling alleys and…


BOGAEV: A handful of Africans, at least, and foreign teachers and printers and doctors and, you know, wide-eyed boys and girls from across England. I think that’s the quote from you. This must have made London such a cosmopolitan and a dynamic place, but what was the backlash? How did Londoners react to all of these strangers and foreigners?

ALFORD: So in many ways, it was a mixed response to strangers in London – welcomed as co-religionists, but a lot of suspicion about the economic opportunities that they were pursuing. And, I think that was a threat that was perceived both by the elite, who were very, very wary of the ability of merchant strangers to kind of find their own little kind of nooks and crannies of the city, and evade the jurisdiction of the city government. And, it’s certainly true on behalf of apprentices and of poorer Londoners, who feel that they’re kind of being pushed out of work by stranger immigrants.

BOGAEV: And, this ambivalence and this conflict, it was reflected in the theater of time—you see it in Shakespeare, but you also see it in other playwrights of the time, including a play that you mentioned called “The Shoemaker’s Holiday” by Dekker. And, why don’t you tell us what that is about and what you found interesting and illustrative in that play.

ALFORD: “The Shoemaker’s Holiday,” yeah, it’s interesting in many ways, kind of historicized sort of reality of strangers in the city, of forbidden love between the nephew of an earl, the Earl of Lincoln, who falls in love with the daughter of a Lord Mayor of the city. And, in order to kind of break up the relationship, the earl sends his nephew off to fight in France. But, the earl’s nephew disguises himself as a shoemaker, but he’s not an English shoemaker, he’s a Dutch shoemaker.

So the whole thing is really kind of play on this character pretending to be a shoemaker. He has kind of mock patois Dutch. And, my sense of it is that Londoners were fully acquainted with this kind of individual. They’d seen Dutch tradesmen in the city. Dekker’s able to kind of poke gentle fun at the position of this individual. You can see that it kind of speaks to the kind of nuanced humor of Londoners, kind of recognizing the sort of strange reality all around them.

BOGAEV: And, you write that you also see this in the play “Sir Thomas More.”


BOGAEV: Which has a complicated authorship story, which includes Dekker and others, and there’s a scene that some people attribute to Shakespeare. And I mention it because it’s a scene that deals with the hostility and the ambivalence that Londoners felt for its strangers. Tell us about that.

ALFORD: Yes. This is a far sharper work than “The Shoemaker’s Holiday,” but same kind of date. It’s about 1500. And, it looks back to the so-called Evil May Day of 1517, and the central character is Thomas More as an undersheriff of London. As you said, it’s got a critical moment, which appears to be the work of Shakespeare, where you’ve got all these native Londoners wanting the strangers to pack their bags, to get out of the kingdom. And More makes this impassioned speech, which speaks to their humanity.

And, More says, “grant them removed,” you know, “grant these strangers removed from the country and grant that this your noise hath chid down all the majesty of England. Imagine that you see the wretched strangers, their babies at their backs with their poor luggage plodding to the ports and coasts for transportation.” And, this great, kind of impassioned speech and for…

BOGAEV: Wow, so a plea for empathy.

ALFORD: Humanity. Yeah, absolutely. Empathy, humanity, over individual and financial gains. It’s a very powerful piece of theater.

BOGAEV: Well, I’m sure, top of mind, but what do we know of Shakespeare’s familiarity with foreigners in this city, whether he was writing from first-hand experience?

ALFORD: I think it must have been. He was lodging with a French family in the city. And, I think Shakespeare, like other dramatists in London, must have been, you know, able to observe these French, Dutch, Italian communities at close hands. Many of these communities were kind of on the edges of the city. I mean, literally, on the edges of the city, as well as kind of on the edges of city life.

BOGAEV: It’s such a fascinating time because at the same time that London is getting flooded with all of these foreigners, you have English merchants and adventurers flooding foreign markets, and you argue that trade and exploration were what elevated London to a world-class city. And, a big part of this chapter of the city’s history involves the creation of what’s known as The Exchange.


BOGAEV: Which I think everyone in England knows what that is, but why don’t you tell us Americans what was The Exchange. What is it and why was it so important?

ALFORD: The Exchange was Thomas Gresham’s Exchange. Sir Thomas Gresham was a member of one of the great mercantile dynasties. And, Gresham’s ambition was to bring to London the kind of center of mercantile life that other cities – Paris, the preeminently Antwerp – had where merchants would meet, where merchants would, literally, exchange instruments of money, for moving money around Europe. Basically, the…

BOGAEV: So everyone was doing this in the street before this?

ALFORD: Yes. Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. One of the great complaints about London by those around the city, by members of the city establishment, is that London suffered the indignity of its merchants standing on the streets in all weather doing this kind of trade.

BOGAEV: In all kinds of terrible weather. [LAUGH]

ALFORD: In all kinds of terrible weather. This is a consistent complaint over decades of standing there in rain and sleet, you know…

BOGAEV: So it was more than say a stock exchange or a shopping center or a bank. It seems to combine or encompass all of those things.

ALFORD: Yes. Gresham’s Exchange is the place for merchants, but as you say, it’s a place for shopping of very high-end goods, attracting elite purses. The gentry kind of hang out there. It’s a place of gossip, of promenading. It’s a place where people buy books. It’s a place of exchange in so many ways. It’s an exchange of news and information and intelligence.

BOGAEV: And, a place to get robbed blind, it sounds like. [LAUGH]


BOGAEV: Where there is that much money and willing, wealthy people, there were criminals and you describe some lovely ones. Tell us about some of the shady business that went on there. And, I’ve always liked the term “fingerer.”

ALFORD: Yes. The cheater.

BOGAEV: You mention. The cheater.

ALFORD: Fingerer. A cheater.

BOGAEV: It’s a kind of a fancy pickpocket. Is that right?

ALFORD: It is, basically, a pickpocket, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

BOGAEV: But, fancy.

ALFORD: Yes. Yes.

BOGAEV: Not you know, someone who’s posing.

ALFORD: These were just kind of disguised gentlemen who would befriend real gentlemen, would take them to dinner, would con them out of money, as well as…

BOGAEV: Grifter.

ALFORD: Yeah, basically, as well as cut purses, picking pockets, begging. And, The Exchange was really a magnet.

BOGAEV: Now, before I read your book, I had a kind of chicken and the egg question, which is I knew London built this exchange to facilitate trading of all kinds, but I wasn’t sure whether they had the goods to trade in it first or whether they built the exchange to make a mark, to put London on the map, and then said, “oh, no, what are we going to trade?” And then, they took off on this amazing age of exploration.

ALFORD: In a sense, it’s a little of both. I’m not entirely sure I can solve the chicken and egg issue.

BOGAEV: So they coincided, it sounds like.

ALFORD: They do. They do. They do. I think, yeah.

BOGAEV: And, this Exchange was another driving force for this explosive change for London. And, as you tell it, one of the big stories in this period is the search by the English for a route to China.


BOGAEV: Which the English called, at the time, Cathay.

ALFORD: Cathay.

BOGAEV: What did the English know about China at the time that made them so eager to get there?

ALFORD: They thought that it was an empire ruled over by probably the greatest prince of the world, the Great Khan, or the Great Cham. But, a kingdom or an empire of immense wealth, that it was probably pretty cold. So, clearly, you know, the subjects of the Great Cham would need English cloth. So they think that here is a great empire with riches, with sort of rich luxury goods that can be traded for good old warm English cloth.

BOGAEV: So they were sure of that, but a lot of things were just made up, it sounds like.


BOGAEV: The Great Khan lived in a city. Cambalu? Cambalu.


BOGAEV: Or something.


BOGAEV: And, it just seems such an interesting mix of fiction and reality.

ALFORD: It is. It’s an absolute kind of conflation of fiction, reality, but some of the great kind of authorities of the day, the cartographical authorities of the day like Abraham Ortelius; they convinced that Cathay existed. You know, you look at it on middle 16th-century maps, it’s there. You see the rivers. You see the towns. You see the cities. So, in a sense, it’s both imaginative, but also has this kind of physical existence. You know, it’s kind of there. And, it’s that kind of navigational story, which is the story of accident, happenstance, disappointment, and great breakthrough also, that I was really interested in kind of unpicking in the book.

BOGAEV: Which is embodied by Sebastian Cabot. He was trying to find China, but first he ran into America. And then, the very interesting part of this story, as well, he ran into Russia instead.

ALFORD: Yes. They bump into Russia entirely by accident. The story of the Cabot Expedition is the Edwardian expedition of 1552-1553, where the notion is to send ships to the northeast, over the top of Scandinavia, over the top of Asia, which, of course, they thought was, you know, entirely navigable, it would be perfectly straight forward, and they dropped down and they would find Cathy.

BOGAEV: I have to say I love the catchy name of the trading company that he found. “The Mystery and Company of the Merchants Adventurers for the Discovery of Regents, Dominions, Islands, and Places Unknown.” I made an acronym for it. It’s MACOMADORDIPU. [LAUGH]


BOGAEV: Good thing he wasn’t a namer for his profession. [LAUGH]

ALFORD: It doesn’t trip easily off the tongue, does it?


ALFORD: I think the Muscovy Company does it. You know, the Muscovy Company is fine. [LAUGH]

BOGAEV: Yeah, they really nailed it later. That’s true. But, the fact that mystery was part of the name, because they really were taking a leap into the dark and they knew it.

ALFORD: Yes. Yeah, and it’s kind of got that sort of medieval sense to it, which is really interesting when you kind of put it alongside this new world that’s being opened up in a physical way, in an imaginative way. You know, they’re working on some evidence. You know, they’re working from some sources. But, they’re essentially making it up.

BOGAEV: It’s wild too that they set sail for Cathay in 1553 with what sounds just an extraordinary letter from King Edward VI.

ALFORD: Yes. Yes. Yes. To all the princes and potentates that they were bound to bump into on the way, opening up an era of friendship and collaboration and cooperation, and seeing that mercantile contact with the whole world is the key to sort of friendship, which is really interesting in a way when you look at some of the motivations here, which are, you know, exclusive trading monopolies and profit by the English of the English at the expense of anyone else. So there are interesting tensions I think sort of built into the whole operation as they’re kind of feeling their way very slowly into it.

BOGAEV: So three ships started out, but only two, and not the flagship, landed in Russia.


BOGAEV: And, all three could have perished. And, as you say, it was just so happenstance, an accident, fortuitous, that they run into Russia, and it ushers in even more prosperity for London. You say this failure actually to reach China ended up forming a connection that was the main reason London became the capital city of a mercantile empire. What was so valuable about the Muscovy Company and the trade with Russia?

ALFORD: It was the kind of trade that was opened up, which was valuable from the start. Russia gave London and Londoners and London merchants directly, direct access rather, to all kinds of raw materials and commodities, furs, train oil, caviar, that previously had made their way into Europe, but very indirectly and distantly for English merchants.

I think what the Muscovy Company shows also is that meeting of mercantile power, intellectual know-how, in a sense there are brains behind this operation that are keyed into wider European networks of knowledge, and also, political power. The Muscovy Company from the beginning has lots of important contacts around the king’s and then the queen’s courts. So it’s a very kind of powerful confluence of things that takes English merchants, at first northwest and towards Russia, but eventually on the same kind of mission, takes them to North America.

BOGAEV: Well, we’ve been talking a lot about money and wealth and power, but London was also a city of tremendous poverty. Just profound poverty and you see in the accounts of this time, and you quote them, that people refer to the deserving and the undeserving poor.


BOGAEV: So how did Londoners at this time of such explosive growth and the burgeoning prosperity think about the poor?

ALFORD: The poor were categorized absolutely as you say in different ways. Those who were poor through no fault of their own, those poor people were helped. The social net was very, very thin indeed. There were alms, houses, there was private charity. So there was some support.

But, there was a great Elizabethan anxiety about poverty, especially those who were either feigning poverty, who were using poverty to get into the purses of the rich, who were “pestering.” That’s a kind of common word, who were pestering the kind of elite outside, on the streets, outside houses, with their begging bowls, who were fabricating their poverty.

And, for those, there was a very different kind of system. No social net at all, but a system of corrective institutions, of hospitals, increasingly for London parishes. The parishes were expected to whip, to punish, the poor and kind of move them onto the parishes of their birth. So the Elizabethan kind of descriptions of what poverty was and who the poor were were very, very different with very different responses.

BOGAEV: Well, this brings us to the topic of money lenders because where there’s poverty and wealth and trade, there are money lenders. And, really, there were always money lenders. But, you do say that one of the most famous lines in Shakespeare sums up the life of London in Shakespeare’s time and it’s his phrase, “Neither a borrower nor a lender be.” So what did Elizabethans think about the lending of money?

ALFORD: Profoundly ambivalent. And, I think that’s one of the, I mean, for me, really sort of interesting strands of the book. The book in many ways is not just about a city. It’s certainly about a city. It’s certainly about the world beyond the city. It’s about the Elizabethan imagination, I think also, and about how Elizabethans and Jacobeans saw the world. And, one of the strands of that, I think, is an uncertainty about money that we see dramatists playing with, that we see preachers getting in the pulpits to talk about. Usury, lending money at interest, is a kind of live issue for Elizabethans, really kind of all the way through the reign of Elizabeth into the 17th century.

BOGAEV: So was this…

ALFORD: The word is highly problematic.

BOGAEV: Was this ambivalence what you think Shakespeare was trying to convey by having Polonius say the line in Hamlet, or do you think he had a more honing in on a more specific point?

ALFORD: I think, to me, he speaks to a situation which was, by the time Shakespeare was writing, pretty untenable. I think what’s really clear is that Elizabethans had a double standard when it came to money. They could denounce usury. Moralists weren’t so keen on, you know, what for us is a very neutral word, which is interest.

There was a big anxiety there about how money was earned, about how money was generated, the realities that, I suppose in London, all kinds of Londoners, were drawn into webs and networks of lending. Small loan-sharking sort of seems to have been endemic throughout the city. The reality on a bigger scene was that kings and princes and states borrowed money.

BOGAEV: Right, and you see all these conflicts playing out in Merchant of Venice, but it’s interesting that you mention the clergy. You know, you have the clergy preaching, you know, “neither a borrow or lender be,” basically, and it reminded us of someone we had on our podcast a while back who was talking about makeup, for instance, in the Elizabethan time. And, of course, the clergy preached against wearing makeup. And, all of the clergy’s sermons, or some of the clergy’s sermons, were written down so that’s how we know they were preaching against wearing makeup. But, that didn’t mean normal women didn’t wear makeup. Some certainly did and, obviously, the queen herself was positively spackled with it. So what did people really think about it? Do we know? Was there really such a prejudice against usury or money lending?

ALFORD: I think it is hard to know. Usury sermons are a kind of genre. Preachers are getting into the pulpit and denouncing usury or you have civil lawyers. An interesting individual called Thomas Wilson, who writes a discourse on usury, in which you have the characters of a merchant and a merchant’s apprentice, you know, who talk in very blunt terms about, well, you know, “why bother risking anything? You know, we can just make our money, generate more money, that’s absolutely fine.” There’s an absolutely kind of un-self-conscious sense there of, well, it’s money. It’s a commodity.

So I think that there is that tension there between, you know, the moralists, between the pulpit, perhaps between the stage and the day-to-day reality that increasingly, even very ordinary merchants were able to lend money. They had to disguise that up to a certain point, but they were lending money, and that Elizabethans were borrows, as well as lenders.

BOGAEV: Yeah, and all of this makes it very hard to get a fix on history, especially when it’s in these transition points, which is really the theme of your story. And, in fact, I finished your book and I asked myself whether there was a moral to it. You know, or if the rise of London was just a one-off, an anomaly of history. But, the moral seemed to be that London became this great global superpower by accident. That that’s the overriding theme.

ALFORD: Yes, I think accident and happenstance appear and reappear throughout the book. And, there’s almost a kind of chaos theory element to the story. I mean, it seemed to me in trying to make sense myself of London of the scale, the complexity, the kind of underlying paradoxes, the successes, the failures, the limitations, just the whole kind of size of the place, that who knew what was going to happen. There’s very little kind of conscious design behind, I think, a lot of it.

BOGAEV: Although it’s very tempting to see parallels to what’s going on now. I mean, I have all sorts of dog-eared pages where I see parallels to today in the discussion of the deserving and undeserving poor, of prejudice against refugees flooding England’s borders, of Brexit and the American story playing out here now.

ALFORD: Yes, absolutely. I think that’s right. And, for me, one of the kind of human interest elements of this is the familiarity and some of the resonances and maybe some of the essential continuities of the human situation of finding, you know, Elizabethans finding themselves, of all of us today finding ourselves, in a sense in situations where we struggle with the paradox and the complexity. And, I think that kind of strikes me as a resonance. Well, I hope as a resonance of the book that in a sense I didn’t have to force very much at all.

BOGAEV: Well, it’s just fascinating stuff. Thank you so much for the book and for talking today.

ALFORD: It’s a great pleasure. Thank you very much.

WITMORE: Stephen Alford is a professor of early modern British history at the University of Leeds. His book London’s Triumph: Merchants, Adventurers, and Money in Shakespeare’s City was published by Bloomsbury USA in 2017. He was interviewed by Barbara Bogaev.
Wander Up and Down to View the City was produced by Richard Paul. Garland Scott is the associate producer. It was edited by Gail Kern Paster and Esther Ferington. Esther French is the web producer. We had help from Andrew Feliciano at Voice Trax West in Studio City, California, and Gareth Dant, the University of Leeds Media Relations Manager, and Simon Moore, the University’s Communications Assistant.

We hope you’re enjoying Shakespeare Unlimited. If you are, please do us a favor. Please consider rating and reviewing the podcasts on whatever platform you get the podcast from. When you do that, it helps us get the word out to people who haven’t heard it yet. Thanks.

Shakespeare Unlimited comes to you from the Folger Shakespeare Library. Home to the world’s largest Shakespeare collection, the Folger is dedicated to advancing knowledge and the arts. You can find more about the Folger at our website, Folger – dot – edu. For the Folger Shakespeare Library, I’m Folger Director Michael Witmore.

Want more? Browse our full list of Shakespeare Unlimited episodes.

Support the Folger
Facebook Twitter Instagram Pinterest YouTube Flickr
Sign up for our Newsletters
201 East Capitol Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
Main (202) 544-4600
Box Office (202) 544-7077


Get Directions
Building & Exhibitions
Monday–Saturday: 10am–5pm

Sunday: Noon–5pm

Reading Room
Monday–Friday: 8:45am–4:45pm

Saturday: 9am–noon & 1pm–4:30pm

© 1996-2018 Folger Shakespeare Library

Privacy Policy Terms of Use Copyright

Buona Serata!

Buona Serata!

Buona Serata!

Notre Dame, Paris. Photo by @akkotiens

Notre Dame, Paris.
Photo by @akkotiens

Notre Dame, Paris. Photo by @akkotiens

ALARMĂ! Guvernul introduce astăzi o Ordonanță prin care va legaliza furtul banilor prin licitații publice fraudate! Amănunte CUTREMURĂTOARE!


ALARMĂ! Guvernul introduce astăzi o Ordonanță prin care va legaliza furtul banilor prin licitații publice fraudate! Amănunte CUTREMURĂTOARE!
comisarul.ro joi, 24 mai 2018, 08:37

Cei care au deturnat puterea politică în România la sfârșitul anului 2016 au decis să emită în cele din urmă o Ordonanță de Urgență privind achizițiile publice, cu următoarele metode ”legale” de favorizare a furtului, metode introduse de-acum în legislația română privind achizițiile publice.

Scopul lor e clar: Să facă legal și ușor furtul banilor prin licitații publice fraudate!

● Metoda de favorizare a furtului # 1
Curtea de Conturi nu mai poate investiga nicio procedură de licitație publică înainte de semnarea contractului. Așadar, accesul al furnizorilor ”agreați” la avansurile de plată nu mai poate fi blocat, indiferent de neregulile din procedura de achiziție publică. Observație: șeful agenției a fost recent schimbat, nominalizarea (politică) fiind pentru o persoană care este loială partidului de guvernământ.

● Metoda de favorizare a furtului # 2
Autoritatea Consiliului Național de Soluționare a Contestațiilor (CNSC) se limitează strict la deciziile privind contestațiile depuse de ofertanți care se referă numai la propriile oferte, nu la ofertele altor ofertanți sau la procedura de licitație. Observație: CNSC funcționează ca o instanță judecătorească, unde deciziile privind contestațiile la procedurile de achiziții publice sunt luate de judecători (parte a sistemului judiciar).

● Metoda de favorizare a furtului # 3
Modificările “neesențiale” ale contractelor de achiziții publice, pe parcursul derulării contractului, nu mai pot constitui un motiv pentru anularea contractului și reluarea procedurii de licitație publică. Termenul “neesențial” este, desigur, nedefinit. Acest lucru va permite autorității contractante să extindă contractele existente, chiar și în cazurile în care adăugirile la scopul proiectului (proiecte în lanț) ar necesita, în mod normal, licitații publice separate.

● Metoda de favorizare a furtului # 4
În situațiile de urgență, autoritatea contractantă poate semna contractul înainte de începerea procedurii de licitație publică. O metodă tipică de furt: (1) întârzie licitației până când achiziția devine urgentă, (2) invocă urgența pentru atribuirea directă a contractului oricui dorești, (3) începe apoi procedura de achiziție publică, care devine o formalitate inutilă. *

● Metoda de favorizare a furtului # 5
Nici o notificare de atribuire nu va fi făcută publică înainte de semnarea contractului, astfel încât concurenții să nu știe că au pierdut licitația până când contractul nu este semnat cu câștigătorul, prin urmare nu pot depune contestații cu privire la greșelile de evaluare a ofertelor înainte de semnarea contractului, ceea ce face ca aceste contestații să fie inutile.

● Metoda de favorizare a furtului # 6
Se elimină notificarea preliminară privind viitoarele licitații publice, ceea ce înseamnă că ofertanții interesați nu pot avea niciun indiciu prealabil că va fi lansată o licitație publică. Acest lucru va da, bineînțeles, un avantaj major ofertanților “agreați”, care au fost informați ”discret” despre ofertă sau care au “ajutat” autoritatea contractantă să scrie Caietul de Sarcini. De asemenea, eliminarea notificării preliminare blochează posibilitatea ofertanților interesați de a depune contestații cu privire la particularitățile procedurilor de licitație anunțate (obiect, cerințe de calificare, termene, etc.) *

● Metoda de favorizare a furtului # 7
Orice ofertant poate prezenta numai două solicitări de clarificare înainte de termenul limită de depunere a ofertelor. Deci, dacă cele două clarificări ale autorității contractante conțin răspunsuri discutabile, ele nu pot fi urmate de cereri suplimentare de clarificare depuse de ofertanți.

● Metoda de favorizare a furtului # 8
Orice ofertant care depune o contestație cu privire la procedura de licitație trebuie să plătească o garanție de 2% din bugetul estimat al licitației, dar nu mai puțin de 6.000 Euro și nu mai mult de 200.000 Euro. Evident, aceasta este o modalitate de a descuraja orice ofertant să depună contestații privind procedura de licitație publică.

● Metoda de favorizare a furtului # 9
CNSC nu mai poate participa la evaluarea ofertelor depuse. Evaluarea va fi efectuată numai de către autoritatea contractantă, în cadrul unei proceduri accelerate, etapele evaluării fiind reduse de la 15 la 4. Aceasta deschide calea unor evaluări subiective care nu pot fi verificate de CNSC.

● Metoda de favorizare a furtului # 10
DE NECREZUT! Ofertele privind proiectele finanțate prin fondurile de coeziune ale Uniunii Europene vor fi scoase din competența CNSC. Așadar, obiectivul principal al noii scheme de fraudare a licitațiilor publice planificate pare să fie banii de la Uniunea Europeană!

● Metoda de favorizare a furtului # 11
Bugetul anual de achiziții al autorităților contractante care au un astfel de buget anual de sub 27 de milioane de euro a fost eliminat. Aceasta înseamnă că ofertele care nu au fost finalizate până la sfârșitul anului bugetar nu vor mai fi anulate și relansate, ci vor continua până la atribuirea contractului. Acest lucru va permite autorităților contractante să lanseze licitații cu termene scurte în timpul sezonului de vacanță din Decembrie, atunci când mulți ofertanți interesați nu vor putea să prezinte oferte, iar evaluarea ofertelor firmelor ”agreate” va continua (și se vor semna contractele) în primele luni ale anului următor. *

● Metoda de favorizare a furtului # 12
Aplicabilitatea procedurilor de atribuire directă va fi extinsă, iar pragul valorii proiectului va fi ridicat. În acest mod, autoritățile contractante vor putea folosi mai des procedurile de achiziții prin negocieri directe, fără nici o licitație publică. Acest lucru va permite mai multor autorități contractante să atribuie contracte de achiziții publice oricui doresc. *

● Metoda de favorizare a furtului # 13
Orice autoritate de control (inclusiv CNSC sau Curtea de Conturi) nu mai poate investiga cazurile în care un proiect mai mare este împărțit în proiecte mai mici, fiecare cu bugete sub pragul de atribuire directă. Acest lucru va permite autorităților contractante să extindă mai ușor contractele cu atribuire directă (fără nicio licitație) cu mult peste pragul permis pentru proiectele care ar fi solicitat în mod normal o procedură de licitație publică.

● Metoda de favorizare a furtului # 14
CNSC va fi limitată să aibă sesiuni de soluționare a contestațiilor numai de două ori pentru fiecare procedură de licitație publică, indiferent de numărul contestațiilor depuse. Aceasta va avea drept consecință inevitabil decizii de evaluare superficială și sumare ale contestațiilor depuse de ofertanți.

● Metoda de favorizare a furtului # 15
CNSC este acum mandatată să verifice aleatoriu 15% din procedurile de licitație publică în fiecare an (chiar și atunci când nu au fost depuse contestații). De acum încolo, CNSC va fi mandatate să verifice aleator doar 10% (anul curent) și 5% (anul viitor) din procedurile de licitație publică.

● Metoda de favorizare a furtului # 16
Controalele de conformitate Ex-ante efectuate pentru fiecare licitație publică de către CNSC vor fi expeditive și vor fi emise în termen de numai 3 zile, astfel încât nu va mai putea fi efectuată nicio documentare detaliată înainte de publicarea anunțul de licitație publică.

    Furtul cât mai substanțial din fonduri publice este cel mai prețios vis al politicienilor corupți. Iar visurile se transformă adesea în realitate, ca în România, unde cei care au câștigat alegerile cu promisiuni populiste au deturnat 40% din toate achizițiile publice (miliarde de euro pe an) care sunt fraudate, într-un mod sau altul!

Cum funcționează instrumentele de furt public ale acestor infractori?

● Depunerea ofertelor în licitațiile publice. Cerințele de calificare sunt configurate astfel încât să se potrivească doar unui singur ofertant, care de obicei a scris Caietul de Sarcini și l-a dat angajaților corupți din autoritatea contractantă, cu o plată sau promisiune anticipată de mită (uneori poate fi utilizată și metoda participantului ”mână moartă”, ca să nu fie licitația doar cu un singur ofertant)

● Atribuirea de contracte de achiziții publice fără licitație, deoarece procedura de achiziții publice este întârziată până când se pot invoca “circumstanțe urgente”, permițând oficialilor corupți să negocieze direct cu un singur furnizor, contra unei mite, plătite în avans sau de-a lungul derulării proiectului

● Împărțirea contractelor în bucăți de 30.000 de euro (bunuri și servicii) sau în bucăți de 100.000 de euro (lucrări publice), care le permite autorităților contractante să atribuie legal contracte în mod direct oricărei firme care o doresc funcționarii corupți. Contra unei mite substanțiale, bineînțeles.

*** Guvernul ar putea adopta azi un proiect de limitare a transparenței procesului de achiziții publice

Guvernul ar putea adopta azi un proiect care propune limitarea transparenței procesului de achiziție publică prin eliminarea comunicării rezultatelor parțiale ale acestora.

Eugen Teodorovici a susținut miecuri, la Palatul Victoria, o declarație de presă însoțită de o prezentare în care se vorbește despre “reducerea numărului contestațiilor care pot bloca începerea derulării contractului” și scurtarea timpului pentru atribuirea contractului de achiziție.

“Era o practică foarte nocivă de a comunica la fiecare la fiecare etapă din procesul de achiziție publică rezultatele acelei etape. Asta făcea ca de fiecare dată firmele interesate de a contesta, făceau contestații. Pentru a elimina această situație care ducea la foarte multe luni și ani de întârziere se comunică rezultatul atribuirii contractului la final”, a spus ministrul Finanțelor.

Trimite pe WhatsApp

Grăsimea de pe abdomen și șolduri dispare în 3-4 zile, trebuie doar să…Grăsimea de pe abdomen și șolduri dispare în 3-4 zile, trebuie doar să…I can make all your fantasies come true, baby…I can make all your fantasies come true, baby…I made access to my candid photos! You still have the opportunity…I made access to my candid photos! You still have the opportunity…Seize Your Chance Now! Get your new Free Tarot Reading! Limited Time OfferSeize Your Chance Now! Get your new Free Tarot Reading! Limited Time OfferThis Cutie Is Waiting For You. See Her In ActionThis Cutie Is Waiting For You. See Her In Action

citește și:
Dragnea i-a făcut șobolani pe Ponta și Tudose la Antena 3! Amenințări la adresa lui Iohannis! VIDEO
ȘOCUL nopții! Procurorul Negulescu, acuzații fără precedent la adresa ministrului Justiției! Demontează MANIPULAREA rostogolită de Propaganda PSD!
BOMBA nopții! Liviu Avram furnizează o informație-CHEIE despre Dosarul Memorandumul! Cu cine s-a întâlnit Dragnea înainte de adoptare!
Povestea șocantă a procurorului care a anchetat Rompetrol! Amănunte CUTREMURĂTOARE!
1 BOMBA nopții! Mihai Tudose și Ecaterina Andronescu pleacă din PSD!
2 ȘOCUL nopții! Procurorul Negulescu, acuzații fără precedent la adresa ministrului Justiției! Demontează MANIPU…
3 VIDEO Dragnea, ieșire dementă la Antena 3! Val de acuzații demne de un suferind de paranoia! Toți sunt dușmani…
4 ALARMĂ! Guvernul introduce astăzi o Ordonanță prin care va legaliza furtul banilor prin licitații publice frau…
5 Explodează PSD? Peste 20 de parlamentari își vor anunța trecerea în tabăra Ponta! Amănunte INCENDIARE!
Te ia DNA: Ioan Chelaru
S-a lansat Milionarul pentru Android! Descarcă din Play Store
Iată cum te poți cățăra pe turnul Eiffel

Abonare newsletter: Zilnic la orele 9:00 și 21:00 Doar dimineața Doar seara
Adresa de e-mail

comisarul.ro © 2018; dinamic soft

• Arhiva • Termeni și condiții • Confidențialitate • Contact

The Royal Palace of Caserta in Campania, Italy !

The Royal Palace of Caserta in Campania, Italy !

The Royal Palace of Caserta in Campania, Italy !

Watch “Joe Cocker – Bye Bye Blackbird (LIVE) HD” on YouTube

Inside Trump’s decision to cancel his North Korea summit – AOL News ( “Kim Jong Un: you’re fired!”)


Inside Trump’s decision to cancel his North Korea summit
AOL.COM 9 hrs ago
WASHINGTON — Early Thursday morning, after a flurry of calls with a handful of senior advisers, an angry President Donald Trump personally dictated the three-paragraph letter to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that cancelled the scheduled summit between their two nations.

It had been less than 12 hours since Trump and his team began grappling intensely with the prospects for shelving what would have been an historic meeting between the two heads of state.

But the president, fearing the North Koreans might beat him to the punch, wanted to be the one to cancel first, multiple officials told NBC News.

“There was no hint of this yesterday,” a person briefed on the summit preparations said, calling Trump’s decision “high risk, high reward.”

In the previous hours, the president had listened to blistering rhetoric from North Korea, was contending with inflammatory remarks from his own vice president and caught between competing positions from his secretary of state and his national security adviser, officials said.

White House officials said discussions about cancelling began in earnest late Wednesday and included the president, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, chief of staff John Kelly and National Security Adviser John Bolton.

Defense Secretary James Mattis wasn’t involved in the discussions Wednesday, though Trump said that he called Mattis about it Thursday morning.

But it was a second round of calls early Thursday, between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m., according to senior White House officials, that convinced Trump to walk away from the summit. His letter went to the North Koreans at 9:43 a.m.

The decision occurred so abruptly that the administration was unable to give congressional leaders and key allies advance notice and the letter went out while more than two dozen foreign journalists, including several U.S. citizens, were inside North Korea where they had gone to witness a promised dismantling of a nuclear test site. At 8:20 a.m., the State Department sent a note to reporters touting the positive discussions that Pompeo was having with Asian counterparts in preparation for the summit.

The move exposed significant disagreements among the president’s top advisers. Several administration officials said Pompeo, who has taken the lead in negotiating with the North Koreans, blamed Bolton for torpedoing the progress that had already been made. Pompeo flew to Pyongyang twice, met personally with Kim and helped secure the release of three Americans who had been held there. Bolton, a longtime national security hawk who has publicly advocated for regime change in North Korea, was integral, these officials said, to convincing Trump to back out of the summit.

But another senior official pushed back on any tension between Pompeo and Bolton, describing the four principals as a “pretty tight-knit group” on this topic.

Republican Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado told reporters on Thursday, after a meeting at the White House, that Trump dictated the letter directly to Bolton.

One person close to Trump said that the president was unhappy with Pence for public remarks he made earlier this week that appeared to threaten Kim with the prospect of regime change if North Korea didn’t meet America’s terms to rid itself of nuclear weapons.