U Better Recognize: That damn Alphacat’s at it again!!.

If You Ain’t Into Barack, Then Roll ON Cause Today is All About The Woman and Man In Charge, Oookkkkk..

Everybody keeps talking about What Barack Obama may or may-not do in this climate of consistent crisis. He’s for sure gotten the biggest Bly of ANY President – Including the beloved Bill Clit-on.

Our Girl Bria of UBetttaRecognize has finally pushed the button ontop of that sonic bomb she’s been keeping hidden for weeks over there, and released this unrelenting response from none other than Alphacat starring as Barack Obama. if you are a proponent of Fierce Politics, Strap Up cause this is for you baby.  There are guest cameos of Sarah Palin, Joe Biden and Rod Blagovitch look-alikes. This is the way I wanna see the Autotune Work.

Pay Attention Weezy, this man understands how to use that piece of ish.

As Ms Bria points out, Michelle O Is ON POINT. She is Blowin up the lyrics and Workin that Dress to death. Fierceness is the mode in this pseudo political musical tingler.

No Screen Lickin Please..

Senate nears credit card compromise

05/11/09 07:19 PM [ET]

By Silla Brush and Jim Snyder – The Hill

The Senate is likely to pass a bill this week that would clamp down on the credit card industry, which would be a victory for President Obama and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and a setback for the financial industry.

Dodd and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, agreed to compromise legislation over the weekend that will likely draw Republican support, aides and industry lobbyists said.

Dodd has seized on a public disgruntled with the industry as he pushes for new regulations, and passing the bill could boost his flagging reelection campaign. The White House has stumped strongly for new rules, and Obama is set to travel to New Mexico for a town hall meeting on the issue Thursday.

The administration is pushing Congress to send the president legislation to sign by Memorial Day.

The compromise goes beyond new rules put in place by the Federal Reserve in December that take effect by July 2010 and further than legislation passed in the House on a strong 357-70 vote. It would codify the Fed rules and take effect earlier — as early as January, nine months after the bill is signed into law.


The bill would also prohibit double-cycle billing and universal default on existing balances, mandate that gift cards have a five-year lifespan and require a study by the Government Accountability Office on “interchange fees.”

But Dodd softened his stance on part of the bill.

Originally, Dodd wanted to ban all retroactive increases in interest rates on outstanding balances, but the compromise legislation allows firms to increase interest rates if cardholders are late on payments by at least 60 days.

The financial industry opposes the bill, arguing that the Fed rules should be allowed to take effect and that undoing them will lead to additional problems in the industry and hamper the flow of credit.

The bill would be a win for consumer advocacy groups that have been pressing for years for tougher regulations to little avail in the Senate. The financial industry, which successfully fought against the rules for years, is now feeling the brunt of broad opposition to credit card companies.

A loss could be a sign of things to come, with a broad range of bills aimed at financial firms on deck. Senate Democrats blamed the industry lobby for scuttling a housing bill pushed by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

“The current economic crisis has made it crystal-clear that ignoring unfair and deceptive lending practices can hurt both family finances and our economy,” said Nick Bourke, manager of the Pew Safe Credit Cards Project. Consumer groups support the compromise bill.

The new restrictions, if passed, would come at a bad time for banks. The nation’s 19 largest banks could lose $82 billion on credit card loans in 2009 and 2010, according to federal regulators’ “stress tests,” out last week.

As if financial service reform, a climate change bill, and an overhaul of the healthcare system isn’t enough for Congress to tackle, this is also the year that the surface transportation bill is up for renewal.

The bill — colloquially referred to as the highway bill, to the great irritation of the transit lobby — is usually a big push on its own, when the congressional plate isn’t nearly as full.

But House Transportation Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) is putting the bill on the fast track, chomping to put his imprint on the nation’s transportation policy. That has construction, state highway, public transit, smart-growth and big business lobbies revving up for a fight.

Jim Berard, a committee spokesman, said Oberstar’s bill will present a new direction in transportation policy. So much so, the chairman refuses to call the bill a “reauthorization” of current policy. His bill will represent a “transformational” change in transportation, Berard said. It will likely increase transit funding, he said, and suggest some way to speed the time it takes to develop a transportation project, while maintaining the integrity of environmental reviews, Berard said.

Oberstar wants to move a bill shortly after recess to have it ready for a floor vote and beat the legislative traffic jam that appropriations bills may cause later this summer.


The bill pays for new highways, bridges, transit systems and bike paths.

Divvying up the money the government gets from taxes on gasoline is hard to do, and the deadline for reauthorization — or “transformation” — can slip a year or more before all the constituencies are satisfied, or just too worn out to fight over the details anymore.

James Corless, director of Transportation for America, a pro-transit group, expressed optimism that the change that everyone is talking about these days in relation to healthcare or climate policy will also translate to transportation.

“The federal transportation program has lost its way,” Corless said. Too much is spent on constructing new roads and bridges, and not enough on other transportation “modes,” including rail and buses, he said.

The last transportation bill spent around 18 percent on transit. Transportation for America would like that increased to at least 25 percent.

In a new report titled “The Route to Reform,” the group calls for a doubling of money in the transportation bill, or to around $500 billion over six years. The report lays out a number of goals: triple walking, biking and public transportation usage; reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled by 16 percent; increase the use of freight rail by 20 percent; and reduce transportation-generated carbon dioxide levels by 40 percent.

The nub of the problem is paying for everything. One option is likely to cause heartburn on Capitol Hill, especially with oil prices going up again: raising the gas tax.

The business lobby also supports raising the gasoline tax. But there is a difference of opinion as to what projects the money should go toward. Janet Kavinoky, director of transportation infrastructure at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the goal should be supporting projects that lead to economic growth. That means more highways to reduce congestion, more freight rail lines and better systems to support international trade.

The goal, she said, should be to get the best bang for the buck, “rather than just spreading money around like peanut butter so that everybody gets something.”

Berard acknowledged that Oberstar’s schedule was aggressive and that there would likely be some resistance along the way.

“In such a massive bill, there is always going to be something that some groups don’t like,” he said. But the chairman hoped that the promise of more money would provide some momentum to the bill.

Because You’ve read this far, I think you deserve another lil Video Treat. this one has Top Stars, the Real Stars. Sam Jackson, Jamie Foxx and loads of others..

This is Blame It – Starring T-Pain and a cast of Stars

Now Lets Get back to the Presidential Auto Tune..

U.S. Eyes Bank Pay Overhaul

Administration in Early Talks on Ways to Curb Compensation Across Finance

Wall St Journal

By DEBORAH SOLOMON and DAMIAN PALETTA

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter.

The initiative, which is in its early stages, is part of an ambitious and likely controversial effort to broadly address the way financial companies pay employees and executives, including an attempt to more closely align pay with long-term performance.

Administration and regulatory officials are looking at various options, including using the Federal Reserve’s supervisory powers, the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission and moral suasion. Officials are also looking at what could be done legislatively.

Among ideas being discussed are Fed rules that would curb banks’ ability to pay employees in a way that would threaten the “safety and soundness” of the bank — such as paying loan officers for the volume of business they do, not the quality. The administration is also discussing issuing “best practices” to guide firms in structuring pay.

At the same time, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) is working on legislation that could strengthen the government’s ability both to monitor compensation and to curb incentives that threaten a company’s viability or pose a systemic risk to the economy.

It is unclear how such a bill would fit with what the Fed and others are already considering. But any legislation passed would make it harder for policy makers to dial back limits once the financial crisis subsides.

Any new compensation rules would likely be rolled out alongside a broader revamp of financial-markets regulation that the Treasury is pushing. The compensation effort is the latest example of the government’s increasing focus on aspects of the financial sector that once were untouched.

Regulators have long had the power to sanction a bank for excessive pay structures, but have rarely used it. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency last year quietly pressed an unidentified large bank to make changes “pertaining to compensation incentives for bank personnel responsible for assigning risk ratings,” a spokesman said. Since 2007, it has privately directed 15 banks to change their executive compensation practices.

Government officials said their effort, which is just beginning, isn’t aimed at setting pay or establishing detailed rules. “This is not going to be about capping compensation or micro-management,” said an administration official. “It will be about understanding what is the best way to align compensation with sound risk management and long-term value creation.”

Despite the banking industry’s weakened state, it would likely try to push back against curbs on how financial firms can compensate people. Bank executives have complained to federal officials that strict rules could prompt some of their best employees to move to parts of the financial industry that aren’t regulated, such as hedge funds, private-equity firms and foreign banks. They’ve also argued that paying substantial bonuses is integral to how the industry works.

“Our companies have already enhanced, strengthened and expanded the number of compensation programs that are tied to long-term incentives,” said Scott Talbott, a senior vice president at the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group.

Edward Yingling, chief executive of the American Bankers Association, said banks might be able to accept new rules “as long as they are general in nature and could be enforced on a case-by-case basis. What would never work is detailed regulation of compensation.”

President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have both blamed the way banks structured compensation plans for contributing to the financial mess. In February, Mr. Obama said executive pay helped lead to a “reckless culture and a quarter-by-quarter mentality that in turn helped to wreak havoc in our financial system.”

Mr. Geithner recently instructed his staff to begin discussions with the Fed, the SEC and others about ways to address compensation practices.

During a recent congressional hearing, Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed was working on rules that will “ask or tell banks to structure their compensation, not just at the very top level but down much further, in a way that is consistent with safety and soundness — which means that payments, bonuses and so on should be tied to performance and should not induce excessive risk.”

In an indication of how broad the effort may become, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair said regulators need to examine compensation practices in the mortgage industry, suggesting new limits could stretch beyond banks.

“We need to make sure that incentives are aligned among all parties by making compensation contingent on the long-run performance of the underlying loans,” Ms. Bair said on Tuesday.

The discussions follow a narrower effort by the administration to clip pay at firms that get federal aid. Earlier this year, it issued guidelines limiting salaries for top executives at firms that received funds under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Congress chimed in with even tougher rules curbing bonuses for top earners at the same firms, among other things. One rule bars firms receiving federal funds from paying top earners bonuses that equal more than a third of their total compensation.

The administration is still wrestling with how to marry those two efforts, which in combination are more punitive than officials intended. The Treasury is expected to issue new rules sometime in the next few weeks.

In Curbing Pay, Obama Seeks to Alter Corporate Culture

WASHINGTON — In announcing executive pay limits on Wednesday, President Obama is trying to hold the financial industry accountable to taxpayers while aiming to change an entrenched corporate culture that endorses outsize bonuses and perks that often bear little relationship to corporate performance.

Mr. Obama also needs to deflect a growing populist outrage over sky-high pay among the banks and other companies now on the public dole. His announcement comes just days before the administration is expected to unveil a new strategy — and possibly request more money from Congress — to guarantee or buy outright hundreds of billions of dollars in bad assets held by banks.

The new rules would set a $500,000 cap on cash compensation for the most senior executives, curtail severance pay when top executives left a company, restrict cashing in on stock incentives until government assistance was repaid and prod corporate boards to closely scrutinize luxury perquisites like private jets and country club memberships.

The plan’s effectiveness in curbing executive pay may not be known for years, however. Past administrations have also been critical of excessive pay, but corporate executives have found ingenious ways around limits, often hiring consultants to create new forms of compensation.

Even the new rules allow companies some leeway. While giving shareholders a say in bonuses above the cap and restricting when stock incentives can be cashed in, the rules do not place limits on the size of such awards, which have become the biggest part of many compensation packages. In addition, the toughest new rules apply only to large companies seeking government assistance to survive.

They do not apply to the more than 350 institutions that have already received bailout funds, only to those that seek aid under the next phase of the bailout program. And companies that seek aid but do not need exceptional government assistance can waive the $500,000 pay cap, as long as they submit their executive pay policies to a nonbinding shareholder vote.

Still, the rules represent the most comprehensive effort to curb compensation. “This is America,” Mr. Obama said on Wednesday. “We don’t disparage wealth. We don’t begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success should be rewarded. But what gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.”

In 2007, the latest year that figures are available, the largest participants in the bailout program paid their chief executives an average compensation of $11 million, including salary, bonus and benefits. Of that amount, according to a review by Equilar, an executive compensation firm, only about $844,000 was cash salary. About $2.5 million was in a cash bonus, with the bulk — $7.4 million — in stock awards, and the remainder in benefits and perks.

If banks return to the government for more money, the new rules would require a reduction in pay, but not in stock awards, though these would be subject to a non-binding vote of the shareholders and would be in the form of long-term incentives because of restrictions on when they could be cashed in.

The plan will most likely force companies to think twice before coming to Washington for a handout, and it is certain to nudge them to return taxpayer loans more quickly.

On Wednesday, for instance, David A. Viniar, the chief financial officer of Goldman Sachs, which received $10 billion from the Treasury Department, told analysts that his firm wanted to repay the government as quickly as feasible to “be under less scrutiny and under less pressure,” according to Bloomberg News.

The Financial Services Roundtable, which lobbies on behalf of banks and other financial institutions, said that giving shareholders a vote on pay could discourage companies from seeking aid.

The rules would not prohibit a lower-level executive, like a stock trader or investment banker, from continuing to receive tens of millions of dollars in pay. Officials also emphasized that several of the proposals would not be made final until after public comments had been considered.

Still, investor groups, union leaders and lawmakers in both parties embraced the proposal.

“There is absolutely no reason why hard-working American taxpayers should be financing, directly or indirectly, excessive compensation for corporate executives whose decisions, in many cases, have crippled their firms and weakened the broader economy,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate banking committee.

Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican minority leader, said that pay limits would be more equitable for rank-and-file taxpayers. “If anyone is looking for the taxpayer to help bail their company out,” he said, “these types of executive pay caps are appropriate.”

Officials said that the larger goal of the proposal was to make the boards of major corporations across a wide range of industries award pay packages more consistent with corporate earnings.

Appearing with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, the architect of the plan, Mr. Obama repeated a theme that he began last week of attacking Wall Street for its excessive compensation.

“For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis is not only in bad taste, it’s a bad strategy, and I will not tolerate it as president,” Mr. Obama said. He said such pay is “exactly the kind of disregard for the costs and consequences of their actions that brought about this crisis — a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else.”

During the Bush administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted new rules promoting better public disclosure of executive compensation as a way to discourage pay not tied to performance. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. also criticized excessive pay as a factor contributing to the crisis on Wall Street and tried to impose some limits on banks receiving bailout funds.

But none of that put a significant dent in executive pay. A recent study by Equilar, a compensation research firm, found that the chief executives of the 10 largest financial services firms in a survey of 200 companies with revenue of at least $6.5 billion were awarded a total of $320 million last year, even though the companies had mortgage-related losses of $55 billion.

Some companies may not find the new pay curbs all that burdensome. The plan does not limit the size of bonuses that can take the form of restricted stock above the $500,000 cap — though companies would have to give shareholders a nonbinding vote on such awards.

Indeed, troubled financial institutions are already giving executives significant sums of restricted stock — shares that are locked up for years and can be sold only under specified conditions — in part because they are trying to preserve cash. Alan Johnson, managing director of Johnson Associates, a Wall Street pay consulting firm, said that in some cases, restricted stock was making up 60 percent of executives’ total compensation.

Mr. Johnson said the new restrictions could make it harder for the government to resuscitate ailing firms by making it harder for them to retain and recruit talented executives.

The plan does not appear to prohibit a financial institution from sponsoring a major golf tournament that most of its executives attend as part of the company’s marketing strategy. At a White House briefing, senior officials repeatedly declined to answer whether the plan would prohibit a company like Citigroup from paying $400 million to have its name on a baseball stadium. It is also unclear whether lucrative pension plans would be banned.

The administration will have to determine how broadly to apply the most severe restrictions as the TARP program is revised. If the new strategy envisions that many banks will be eligible for assistance, as they have in the past, then the less restrictive pay rules would apply to them.

Eric Dash contributed reporting from New York, and Jeff Zeleny from Washington.

Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it, about it, and subscribe to this blog RSS feed.

We Hope TPain will understand this; Cause we love it

Here’s Wising everybody a Goooood Monday Mo’ning,

Today’s Lil Essay is specifically directed to US President – Mr. Barack Obama – Yessirr, it’s Messed Up Monday -

it’s about time we started really looking at history through modern eyes Sir, Cha’mon Now, – (that’s mijac speak for Co’mon)

(This is our Music Monday Link).

We do not think that this diminishes the quality and intensity of the speech. Contrary to that,  it just updates it with the times. the message is clear, we need to finally accept the reality that we now have and do something to make our lives, Finally “The Dream” that Dr. King and so many others envisioned, Cha’mon Now You Know You Wanna Do It..

What is wrong in Sudan when they Sentence these few and let the real murderer who resides in the office of the president, walk free;

Cha’mon now Mr Obama ?

Click to listen to Our First Darfur Podcast detailing this whole mess – from 2004

2009 January – Sudanese Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi is arrested after saying President Bashir should hand himself in to The Hague to face war crimes charges for the Darfur war.

2009 March – The International Criminal Court in The Hague issues an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur.

Mr Obama, you acknowledge  that The International Court in the Hague has no teeth since it doesn’t execute it’s own arrest warrants, and therefore is of little consequence to anyone, especially murders like Bush, Cheney, and Bashir. You’ve said you plan to deal with the torture in Iraq. we’re waiting..

Cha’mon Mr Obama, show us what YOU Workin Wit..

Mr. Obama we elected you on the promise to Fix This Mess.. well this is on the list, and we’ve heard nothing from you on this extremely important and crucial issue. There are Too Many Lives Being Taken in Darfur for you to ignore it.. so stop this waste of time talking about Afghanistan; and go fix this broken wagon wheel – if you really think you’ve got the power to make a change… CHA’MON NOW !

Show Us What You’re Working WITH, Why Dontcha Mr Obama.. CHA‘MON

This is what they are using for distraction from the real story which is below this one..

Do Not Be Distracted by Lies and Games Mr. Obama – we have seen them before,

The unprecedented rebel attack on Khartoum left more than 200 dead

A Sudanese court has sentenced 11 Darfur rebels to death for an attack on Khartoum in 2008.

The members of the Justice and Equality Movement (Jem) were found guilty of involvement in the unprecedented assault on the Sudanese capital.

Some 80 Jem members have already been sentenced to death for the attack, which left more than 200 people dead.

The Jem fighters drove across the desert to reach Khartoum and were only stopped near the presidential palace.

On Sunday, Judge Hafez Ahmed at the court in Khartoum found the 11 rebels guilty of terrorism and illegal possession of weapons, the AFP news agency reported.

“For their actions in terrorising the people, and threatening the foundation of the state… aggressive sentences are required,” the judge told the courtroom.

Eight other men were acquitted.

The attack in May 2008 was the closest the rebels have ever been to Khartoum.

Local residents said the fighting lasted several hours.

Jem is currently the most significant fighting rebel force in Darfur.

In February, Jem signed a “declaration of intent” for a peaceful settlement of the war during talks with Sudan’s government in Doha, Qatar.

But Jem is now refusing to return to the peace talks, accusing Khartoum of not honouring confidence-building accords.

This is the most important issue that should be addressed in terms of any resolution of the Darfur Genocide – The Removal and Trial of Omar Bashir.

Click to listen to Our First Darfur Podcast detailing this whole mess – from 2004

About 300,000 people have died and 2.7m people have been displaced

In late 2007 I was in a large and overcrowded camp for displaced people just outside the western Darfur town of El Fasher.

A young mother, her face wet with tears, told me the story of how she came to be there.

“It was six in the morning when we heard the sounds of airplanes, horses and camels,” she said.

“Then came gunfire. We were very frightened and stayed in our homes. After a while some men with guns arrived in the village and told us it was safe to come out. There were nine people in our house, including my son and my brother.

“The gumen told them to lie down. Then they shot them all. The men took everything. They even took my clothes and left me naked.”

Khadiga Osman says Sudanese government soldiers helped the Janjaweed Arab militia carry out the massacre. “I saw their uniforms clearly,” she told me.

Many others in Darfur said the same.

But given the Sudanese government’s repeated denials that their soldiers backed or helped the Janjaweed carry out atrocities, the allegations have long been hard to prove.

They said they are the ones who help the rebels and you have to kill everybody. Don’t leave anybody, just kill everybody Khalid Tense Sudan awaits court decision

Yet now a former Sudanese soldier has claimed that his regiment, based near the town of El Fasher, joined Janjaweed fighters in seven attacks on villages from late 2002.

Khalid, which is not his real name, says he was forcibly recruited and then left in no doubt what officers wanted him and his fellow black conscripts to do.

“The orders given to us are to burn the villages completely. We don’t have to leave anything, even the water pots we have to destroy. We even have to poison the water wells.

“We were also given an order to kill all the women and rape the girls under 13 and 14 downwards.”

He confirmed he was ordered to rape and kill adults and children.

Khalid admits to taking part in burning peoples’ homes but insisted that he had no choice because he had seen two other conscripts of black African origin shot dead after refusing to do what they were told.

Simulated rape

But he says he always tried to shoot over people’s heads and merely simulated the rape of a young women that he was ordered to violate.

I asked Khalid what orders he was given about what to do with unarmed civilians who offered no resistance.

“They said they are the ones who help the rebels and you have to kill everybody. Don’t leave anybody, just kill everybody.”

Khalid said he was also told to shoot children that had been left behind by their parents.

Mike Thomson has reported for years on Sudan’s conflict

He estimates that the number of civilian killings he witnessed by Janjaweed and government troops runs into more than 1,000.

Finally, after a year’s service, he deserted from the army and later managed to get out of the country.

Fearful that members of the International Criminal Court might come knocking on his door with an arrest warrant, Khalid asked me not to reveal his name or the place where he now lives.

But he insists that the blame for all that happened lies not with him, but with the President of Sudan, Omar Al-Bashir.

“Omar Bashir is in the chair. All information comes from him. The responsibility is down to him. He is the first person that is responsible for the genocide, of the killing of the children, of everything.

“If you are head of the country then any crimes then you are responsible for any crimes done by your soldiers. It is al-Bashir doing all these things.”

Should judges from the International Criminal Court come to the same decision, which it is widely expected that they will, a warrant will be issued for the arrest of the Sudanese President.

He is currently accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

However, responsibility for the execution of a warrant for some, or all of these charges, will be left to the Sudanese authorities.

So far they have refused repeatedly to hand over two other Sudanese officials also wanted by the ICC.

As a result nobody should expect to see Mr al-Bashir standing trial in the Hague any time soon.

So Forget about Afghanistan Mr Obama - Lets Go to Sudan and Stop This Genocide, Finally. You promised to look at the suffering equally and to do the thing the people want. we want you to do something about DARFUR – NOW.

Click to listen to Our First Darfur Podcast detailing this whole mess – from 2004

In Sudan this week (03/09), as the International Criminal Court issued a warrant from the arrest of President Bashir, the BBC’s Owen Bennett-Jones found echoes of a 100-year-old conflict.

The sect’s leader or sheikh, a frail, blind man was sitting on his bed with his thin legs crossed.

The Mahdi who led a 19th century rebellion is still revered in Sudan

He asked me why I had come. Well, I had heard that his followers met two evenings a week to sing, dance and pray, I said. I was wondering if I could attend a ceremony.

As he contemplated whether or not I could be a problem, he put me straight on one point. “It’s not dancing,” he said. “That would be against Sharia – it’s a moving of the limbs.” Then, “Come back at nine.”

Religious fervour

The men met in a poor suburb of Khartoum in a roughly built brick courtyard with no roof.

Standing in a circle they started to sing the names of Allah. The half moon shone down, offering a gloomy light.

The houses in the area, with doors and windows open to relieve the heat, were packed tightly together.

As I looked into the men’s faces I thought this here, right now in the late evening, in a small courtyard on the outskirts of Khartoum is why being a foreign correspondent is such a privilege

As the devotional chants floated through the homes, the prayer leader, resplendent in a gold-edged black robe and with a high white turban, made small hand movements to four drummers instructing them to quicken and slow the pace.

For an hour, the surging rhythms allowed pauses for breath and contemplation, but over time became faster and faster as the men, with some young boys squeezed in between, began to roll their heads from side to side.

And with ever more violent jerks – all the while chanting – they worked themselves into a state of near ecstasy.

Their faces filled with the joyous smiles of religious fervour and then some started dancing – or perhaps I should say moving their limbs – in the middle of the circle.

One tall man with a long white tunic and greying hair, his whole body shaking, moved around the circle of worshippers touching each one, while besides him a five-year-old boy mimicked his every move.

It was about as different to a Church of England service as you could ever imagine.

And as I looked into the men’s faces I thought this here, right now in the late evening, in a small courtyard on the outskirts of Khartoum, is why being a foreign correspondent is such a privilege.

‘Martyred Christian’

I had gone to Sudan to make a history programme. I wanted to learn more about the man who fought the British in the 1880s – a boat builder’s son who declared that having received instructions from the Prophet Mohammed he was the Mahdi, or guided one.

He rapidly became the undisputed leader of, depending how you look at it, a religious revival intended to purify Islam or an anti-colonial struggle to expel foreign rulers.

Famously, it all culminated when thousands of the Mahdi’s followers – the Mahdi army, to coin an Iraqi phrase – surged up to the governor’s palace in central Khartoum and beheaded the senior British officer there, General Gordon.

Winston Churchill was critical of the effects Islam had on its believers

It was a humiliating British defeat and the London press was quick to depict Gordon as a Christian knight martyred by Muslim savages.

Gordon’s death was eventually avenged when General Kitchener arrived in Khartoum with some gunboats and an overwhelming force and crushed the Mahdi’s followers.

There is a vivid account of that campaign because a young man who was there wrote a book about it all, it is called The River War and the author was Winston Churchill.

Churchill had some fairly strong views on Islam.

“No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. And were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall.”

That was Churchill. This is George Bush: “There are extreme elements that use religion to achieve objectives. And they want us to leave. And they want to topple government. They want to extend an ideological caliphate that has no concept of liberty inherent in their beliefs.”

Enraged crowds

Try this. Next time you see an article about the war on terror in the Western press replace the words “Muslim radical” or “Muslim extremist” with “Mohammedan fanatic” or “savage dervish” and you rather rapidly find yourself back in the 19th Century.

President Bashir said Sudan would not “kneel” to colonialists

My short stay in Khartoum working on the history programme was soon derailed.

Sudan became the world lead story when the International Criminal Court issued the country’s president with an arrest warrant for war crimes.

His response was defiant – “a new colonialism,” he called it – and, in the streets, as enraged crowds gathered at the site where Gordon had been beheaded, old sensitivities rose to the surface.

Once again, they complained, the West was seeing the Sudanese people as uncivilised savages. The Mahdi took on Gordon. President Bashir is taking on the ICC.

I wonder what General Gordon or Churchill would have thought if, 130 years ago, they had seen that Sufi sect singing and dancing.

Well, we have a pretty good idea about that. One of the phrases Churchill used was “a degraded sensualism, depriving life of its grace and refinement.”

And in his diaries Gordon, a very devout Christian, had no doubt that the Mahdi and his men were overexcited natives hell-bent on destroying the civilised world.

Today the language has changed but, for many, on both sides – the basic ideas are much the same.

A chronology of key events:

1881 - Revolt against the Turco-Egyptian administration.

Khartoum: Capital is part of a major metropolitan area 2007: Khartoum booms as Darfur burns

1899-1955 Sudan is under joint British-Egyptian rule.

1956 - Sudan becomes independent.

1958 - General Abbud leads military coup against the civilian government elected earlier in the year

1962 - Civil war begins in the south, led by the Anya Nya movement.

1964 - The “October Revolution” overthrows Abbud and a national government is established

1969 - Jafar Numayri leads the “May Revolution” military coup.

1971 - Sudanese Communist Party leaders executed after short-lived coup against Numayri

1972 - Under the Addis Ababa peace agreement between the government and the Anya Nya the south becomes a self-governing region.

1978 - Oil discovered in Bentiu in southern Sudan.

1983 - Civil war breaks out again in the south involving government forces and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led by John Garang.

Islamic law imposed

1983 - President Numayri declares the introduction of Sharia (Islamic law).

Civil war pitted Muslim north against Christian, animist south 2003: From soldiers to schoolboys 2002: Sudan’s tense frontline

1985 - After widespread popular unrest Numayri is deposed by a group of officers and a Transitional Military Council is set up to rule the country.

1986 - Coalition government formed after general elections, with Sadiq al-Mahdi as prime minister.

1988 - Coalition partner the Democratic Unionist Party drafts cease-fire agreement with the SPLM, but it is not implemented.

1989 - National Salvation Revolution takes over in military coup.

1993 - Revolution Command Council dissolved after Omar al-Bashir is appointed president.

US strike

1995 - Egyptian President Mubarak accuses Sudan of being involved in attempt to assassinate him in Addis Ababa.

1998 - US launches missile attack on a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, alleging that it was making materials for chemical weapons.

1998 - New constitution endorsed by over 96% of voters in referendum.

1999 - President Bashir dissolves the National Assembly and declares a state of emergency following a power struggle with parliamentary speaker, Hassan al-Turabi.

Advent of oil

1999 - Sudan begins to export oil.

2000 President Bashir meets leaders of opposition National Democratic Alliance for first time in Eritrea.

Main opposition parties boycott presidential elections. Incumbent Bashir is re-elected for further five years.

A US missile targeted a Khartoum pharmaceutical plant in 1998

2001 Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi’s party, the Popular National Congress, signs memorandum of understanding with the southern rebel SPLM’s armed wing, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). Al-Turabi is arrested the next day, with more arrests of PNC members in the following months.

Government accepts Libyan/Egyptian initiative to end the civil war after failure of peace talks between President Bashir and SPLM leader John Garang in Nairobi.

US extends unilateral sanctions against Sudan for another year, citing its record on terrorism and rights violations.

Peace deal

2002 – Government and SPLA sign landmark ceasefire agreement providing for six-month renewable ceasefire in central Nuba Mountains – a key rebel stronghold.

Eight-year peace process ended with deal to end conflict in south Q&A: Peace in Sudan

Talks in Kenya lead to a breakthrough agreement between the government and southern rebels on ending the 19-year civil war. The Machakos Protocol provides for the south to seek self-determination after six years.

2003 February – Rebels in western region of Darfur rise up against government, claiming the region is being neglected by Khartoum.

2003 October – PNC leader Turabi released after nearly three years in detention and ban on his party is lifted.

Uprising in west

2004 January – Army moves to quell rebel uprising in western region of Darfur; hundreds of thousands of refugees flee to neighbouring Chad.

Darfur: Conflict has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions Q&A: Sudan’s Darfur conflict

2004 March – UN official says pro-government Arab “Janjaweed” militias are carrying out systematic killings of African villagers in Darfur.

Army officers and opposition politicians, including Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi, are detained over an alleged coup plot.

2004 May – Government and southern rebels agree on power-sharing protocols as part of a peace deal to end their long-running conflict. The deal follows earlier breakthroughs on the division of oil and non-oil wealth.

2004 September – UN says Sudan has not met targets for disarming pro-government Darfur militias and must accept outside help to protect civilians. US Secretary of State Colin Powell describes Darfur killings as genocide.

Peace agreement

2005 January – Government and southern rebels sign a peace deal. The agreement includes a permanent ceasefire and accords on wealth and power sharing.

Ex-rebel John Garang’s time in government was cut short Obituary: John Garang, Africa’s enduring rebel 2005: Sudan ex-rebel joins government

UN report accuses the government and militias of systematic abuses in Darfur, but stops short of calling the violence genocide.

2005 March – UN Security Council authorises sanctions against those who violate ceasefire in Darfur. Council also votes to refer those accused of war crimes in Darfur to International Criminal Court.

2005 June – Government and exiled opposition grouping – National Democratic Alliance (NDA) – sign reconciliation deal allowing NDA into power-sharing administration.

President Bashir frees Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi, detained since March 2004 over alleged coup plot.

Southern autonomy

2005 9 July – Former southern rebel leader John Garang is sworn in as first vice president. A constitution which gives a large degree of autonomy to the south is signed.

2005 1 August – Vice president and former rebel leader John Garang is killed in a plane crash. He is succeeded by Salva Kiir. Garang’s death sparks deadly clashes in the capital between southern Sudanese and northern Arabs.

2005 September – Power-sharing government is formed in Khartoum.

2005 October – Autonomous government is formed in the south, in line with January 2005 peace deal. The administration is dominated by former rebels.

Darfur conflict

2006 May – Khartoum government and the main rebel faction in Darfur, the Sudan Liberation Movement, sign a peace accord. Two smaller rebel groups reject the deal. Fighting continues.

2006 August – Sudan rejects a UN resolution calling for a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur, saying it would compromise sovereignty.

African Union has struggled to contain Darfur violence 2006: Darfur’s doomed peacekeeping mission

2006 October – Jan Pronk, the UN’s top official in Sudan, is expelled.

2006 November – African Union extends mandate of its peacekeeping force in Darfur for six months.

Hundreds are thought to have died in the heaviest fighting between northern Sudanese forces and their former southern rebel foes since they signed a peace deal last year. Fighting is centred on the southern town of Malakal.

2007 April – Sudan says it will accept a partial UN troop deployment to reinforce African Union peacekeepers in Darfur, but not a full 20,000-strong force.

War crimes charges

2007 May – International Criminal Court issues arrest warrants for a minister and a janjaweed militia leader suspected of Darfur war crimes.

US President George W Bush announces fresh sanctions against Sudan.

2007 July – UN Security Council approves a resolution authorising a 26,000-strong force for Darfur. Sudan says it will co-operate with the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (Unamid).

2007 October – SPLM temporarily suspends participation in national unity government, accusing Khartoum of failing to honour the 2005 peace deal.

2007 December – SPLM resumes participation in national unity government.

2008 January – UN takes over Darfur peace force.

Within days Sudan apologises after its troops fire on a convoy of Unamid, the UN-African Union hybrid mission.

Government planes bomb rebel positions in West Darfur, turning some areas into no-go zones for aid workers.

2008 February – Commander of the UN-African Union peacekeepers in Darfur, Balla Keita, says more troops needed urgently in west Darfur.

Abyei clashes

2008 March – Russia says it’s prepared to provide some of the helicopters urgently needed by UN-African Union peacekeepers.

Tensions rise over clashes between an Arab militia and SPLM in Abyei area on north-south divide – a key sticking point in 2005 peace accord.

Presidents of Sudan and Chad sign accord aimed at halting five years of hostilities between their countries.

CONTROVERSIAL CENSUS The 2008 count could have an big impact on Sudan’s political future Sudanese stand up to be counted

2008 April – Counting begins in national census which is seen as a vital step towards holding democratic elections after the landmark 2005 north-south peace deal.

UN humanitarian chief John Holmes says 300,000 people may have died in the five-year Darfur conflict.

2008 May – Southern defence minister Dominic Dim Deng is killed in a plane crash in the south.

Tension increases between Sudan and Chad after Darfur rebel group mounts raid on Omdurman, Khartoum’s twin city across the Nile. Sudan accuses Chad of involvement and breaks off diplomatic relations.

Intense fighting breaks out between northern and southern forces in disputed oil-rich town of Abyei.

2008 June – President Bashir and southern leader Salva Kiir agree to seek international arbitration to resolve dispute over Abyei.

Bashir accused

2008 July – The International Criminal Court’s top prosecutor calls for the arrest of President Bashir for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur; the appeal is the first ever request to the ICC for the arrest of a sitting head of state. Sudan rejects the indictment.

2008 September – Darfur rebels accuse government forces backed by militias of launching air and ground attacks on two towns in the region.

2008 October – Allegations that Ukrainian tanks hijacked off the coast of Somalia were bound for southern Sudan spark fears of an arms race between the North and former rebels in the South.

2008 November – President Bashir announces an immediate ceasefire in Darfur, but the region’s two main rebel groups reject the move, saying they will fight on until the government agrees to share power and wealth in the region.

2008 December – The Sudanese army says it has sent more troops to the sensitive oil-rich South Kordofan state, claiming that a Darfur rebel group plans to attack the area.

2009 January – Sudanese Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi is arrested after saying President Bashir should hand himself in to The Hague to face war crimes charges for the Darfur war.

2009 March – The International Criminal Court in The Hague issues an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur.

Click to listen to Our First Darfur Podcast detailing this whole mess – from 2004

Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it, about it, and subscribe to this blog RSS feed.