Many Years Later, He's Still a Wonder

President Barack Obama honored Stevie Wonder at the White House Wednesday night. He received the Library of Congress's Gershwin Prize for Popular Song. A select group of musicians and guests made the night a special one.

First Lady Michelle Obama talked about Stevie's classic "Talking Book" album, the first she ever bought. For me, the name Stevie Wonder goes back even further, to a time when "Little" was attached to it. With all the music this man has produced through the years, it all goes back to 1963, to "Fingertips".

I was right around Stevie Wonder's age when I first heard the song on the radio. Here was a kid whose voice hadn't yet changed, a kid I could relate to. Here was a young man people were calling a genius. From his first exhortation, "Everybody say yeah!", "Fingertips" was special.

In those days, records were often divided into Parts 1 and 2. Unlike most singles, however, "Fingertips Pt. 2" was released as the "A "side, the one that was pushed. It's energy can be traced to the fact that it was recorded live at Chicago's Regal Theater.

Bongos, harmonica, and voice blazing, Little Stevie Wonder served notice with this song. "Fingertips" became the first live, non studio recording to top the Billboard singles chart. It should be noted that the drummer on this song was none other than Marvin Gaye.

There were a lot of talented hitmakers in the early 1960s. 1963 was the year before the Beatles "invaded" America, and changed music forever. Yet so did Stevie Wonder, time after time after time. He's truly an American treasure, fully deserving of the accolades afforded him by the president.

"Everybody say yeah!"

Obama's Hope, or GOP Rope-a-Dope?

By Mark Riley


President Barack Obama addressed Congress for about 52 minutes, or just over 6000 words, if you're counting. He made the most of his time, sketching an ambitious visions for the nation's recovery. At the same time, his speech seemed crafted to repel Republican criticisms he knew were coming.

Now that conservative talk radio and a single business tv rant have become the cornerstones of GOP rebuttal, Obama knew his speech to lawmakers and the nation had to take their influence into account. When he said he didn't believe in bigger government or massive debt, he was speaking to the only talking points Republicans rely on in this, the winter of their discontent.

They can only engage in negative speculation about the consequences of the course Obama has charted. They harbor the absurd belief that a mantra of relentless criticism without any program of their own will actually work in these tough times.

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana showed his hand not in his response Tuesday night but this past Sunday.



The "rising star" of the Republicans made it plain the game they're playing is about what they consider good politics, not the good of the nation.

Isn't it odd that through every initiative this president has put forward there's been no competing vision by his opposition? Even the "we won't accept parts of the stimulus" movement of just the other day has lost significant steam.

One can quibble with parts of President Obama's plan to speed the nation's economic recovery. At least, however, he's got a plan.

What do the naysayers have? Rick Santelli, Rush Limbaugh, and Bobby Jindal?

Does Slumdog Exploit, or Just Reflect?

By Mark Riley


By now just about everyone knows the movie "Slumdog Millionaire" was the big winner at this year's Oscars. Eight awards, including best picture will be on every ad for the movie over the next little while.

I don't go to movies often, in fact, I hardly go at all. I've been disappointed by so many, even those with much critical hype attached.



Yet there I was Monday, with my wife, going to the local multiplex to check out Slumdog. Part of what made me go was a dinner conversation over the weekend about whether the film accurately portrays the slum life of Mumbai. That debate was the projection of a larger controversy, with many Indians, including filmmakers, highly critical of Slumdog.

Of course, there's nothing quite like seeing for yourself. The first thing that struck me about the movie-going experience was the annoying volume of the sound. This obviously wasn't the film's fault, but I came away with ear fatigue from all the explosive punctuations Surround Sound pounded through my ear canal. Good sound should never leave your ears pounding.

That having been said, the film was quite well done, even if the story line was a bit sappy. Was it exploitative? I didn't think so, but then, I'm not Indian.

I thought back to another portrayal of slum life, the highly regarded Brazilian film "City of God". I remarked to my wife that there were few if any charges of exploiting slum life against that picture.

She pointed out that "City of God", while critically acclaimed, didn't win an Oscar, much less eight the way Slumdog did. Maybe Hollywood's embrace of a film not part of India's thriving Bollywood cinema scene was part of what troubled people?

What ought to trouble people, in the end, is that slums like those in Mumbai and Rio exist in the first place. We think the world has come so far in the 21st century. For me, the power of "Slumdog Millionaire" is the reality that we've got so far to go.



What do you think? Does "Slumdog Millionaire" exploit the poor of Mumbai?