Review for the newest local restaurant, Centara Thai Cuisine

“I’m having a bad day—only a lunch break can make it better,” I said, morosely, to Daryl. Daryl is never one to turn down good food, which is why we’re such a good pair.

“I’ve only got about an hour before I have to go back to the lab,” he crackled through the phone.  He was likely in his 12^th floor office at the hospital, and I was calculating exactly how long it would take to pick him up, navigate through the parking garage and get something delicious to soothe my crankiness.

I don’t like to rush my dining experiences, but knew Daryl was always more flexible when food was involved—He’d sit an extra few minutes.

I had been meaning to try Centara, the Thai restaurant near the Stony Brook train station that replaced Cosmo’s, a pizza and gyro place.  I never visited Cosmo’s since I’m too elitist with my pizza, and due to its closing I suspect it was just one of the many mediocre pizza suppliers that pepper Long Island.

As we walk through the glass door with a taped sign reading “Cash Only J,” the breeze behind us seems to follow and transform into a bright, simple décor.  I love the light green color of the walls, and the big windows surrounding the dining room allow diners to bask in the sunlight.

I’ve found that a Thai restaurant’s idea of a Thai iced tea is a good indicator of how the rest of the meal will follow.  Daryl and I each order one, and it’s decent.  Thai iced teas are similar to chai tea in flavor because they both usually feature anise, cinnamon and cardamom—there’s no hard and fast way to make either.  I prefer a good Thai iced tea to a chai because of the added sugar and the floating layer of condensed milk on top.  Don’t let the “condensed” part get you—it’s wonderful when it mixes with the spiced black tea underneath and turns the whole drink to a bright orange color.  I’ve seen variations of the drink that have half and half or coconut milk on top instead, and I’ve always enjoyed the condensed milk best because it gives the best creamy flavor.

Centara’s  Thai iced tea has a good level of sugar that won’t hurt your teeth like commercially brewed and sweetened iced teas can, and I believe theirs has half and half as the dairy layer.

The appetizers are only a few dollars each, so we order both the fried spring rolls with chicken and chicken satay.  The spring rolls are very pleasantly crispy and not overly oily, and they pair well with the chili sauce accompaniment.  However, the little morsels of chicken are few and far between.

“You ever notice how a lot of appetizers come in odd numbers?” I ask Daryl, cutting the fifth in half.  It’s always an issue for me, as I prefer my lunch and dinner dates with only one other person.

Fortunately, there are four skewers of chicken satay, seasoned yellow with turmeric and paired with a peanut dipping sauce.  The chicken is nicely seasoned, but the peanut sauce is mediocre and tastes too jarred for my liking.

The satay is served with a tiny bowl of equally mediocre cucumber salad.  It is far too watered down to taste the vinegary and sweet notes of the dressing over cucumbers, carrots and onions.  Luckily, there are only about two big spoonfuls in the bowl.

The “Dancing Squid” entrée I ordered is more of a slow shuffle—the awkward dance at Prom you just wish would end.  The dish of squid, vegetables and noodles is saturated with a sauce that is salty and a tad fishy.  The fishiness isn’t necessarily a detriment, but the salt accentuates it to a point where no other flavors are noticeable.  The small, curling pieces of plump squid aren’t particularly flavorful and the delicate vegetable flavors are muted by the salty, fishy sauce.

Finally, the squid’s dance is over, and I jealously eye Daryl’s lunch.  He lets me steal a couple spoonfuls of peanut curry, a nutty and spicy mixture of the spice, creamy coconut milk and peanuts.  It is served with rice along with zucchini, carrots and red pepper, and is just spicy enough to merit itself as a curry.

Daryl would later say that it tasted like spicy Jiffy, but I don’t think it was quite thick enough.  I learned my lesson, though—stick to what you know at Centara.

The New York Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin delivers a clear history of the current financial crisis.

A raving review from The Atlantic Monthly on the flap jacket of “Too Big To Fail” states: “Andrew Ross Sorkin pens what may be the definitive history of the banking crisis.” The adulation is not undeserved as Sorkin describes the tumultuous global financial crisis in adept detail and succinctness. The business lexicon of “too big to fail” may appear anachronistic to readers, but Sorkin makes it accessible. Too big to fail refers to the practice of governments deeming certain financial institutions to be of systematic importance and whose continued ineptitude would have adverse effects on the economy. “Too Big To Fail” is a harrowing account of the demise of the Second Gilded Age exemplified by the largest scale government intervention in modern history at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Andrew Ross Sorkin at the offset does not profess to be an economics professor. Sorkin provides a sociological examination of Wall Street executives and government bureaucrats. He devotes a portion of each chapter encapsulating the biographical details and related factoids of key figures in the book. The narrative of “Too Big To Fail” is driven by jarring interviews conducted by the author and loosely construed anecdotes. Readers have to assert their own judgment in evaluating the truthfulness and validity of Sorkin’s claims.

Sorkin depicts an insulated world where sordid type A individuals inhabit. One bemusing anecdote involves the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Timothy Geithner. Geithner’s meticulous personality is tested by a driver who fails to show up in a prompt manner. Sorkin states: “Geithner, arguably the second most powerful central banker in the nation after Bernanke, stepped into the twenty-person deep taxi line. Panting his pockets, he looked sheepishly at Mitchell. “Do you have cash on you?” (60). Geithner can be noted for his bargaining efforts and strong-arming in orchestrating proposed mergers for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley respectively.

“Too Big To Fail” progresses in a linear fashion from the initial murmurs of Lehman Brothers’ insolvency to the roundtable of the “Big 9” Wall Street firms accepting TARP (Trouble Asset Relief Program) funds. Sorkin in a NYMag interview describes how his work mirrors that of the film Crash: “And of course as the story progresses, they cataclysmically come together and you start seeing the connections between things” (Sorkin). A further parallel can be drawn in the conflicted and morally bankrupt nature of the characters in Crash to that of Wall Street executives.

“Too Big To Fail” operates to a certain extent as a self reflective meditative work. Sorkin provides instances in which the key figures of the book absolve or eradicate prior missteps and erroneous misjudgments. The interplay of characters and events is a recurring theme in the book. One poignant example involves the ouster of Jamie Dimon (current CEO and Chairman of JP Morgan) from Citigroup. Sorkin states: “The untenable situation finally came to head a few days after the new Citigroup reported a disappointing third quarter, the result of a summer of turmoil as Russia defaulted and the hedge fund LTCM nearly collapsed” (75). The ouster motivated Dimon to build JP Morgan as an efficient business model and revered financial institution. Dimon gutted unnecessary expenditures and minimized risk, while employing less leverage to boost returns in the financial balance sheet.

Sorkin surmises that the endearing pretense of being ‘top dog’ was galvanized upon by most Wall Street firms. The gold standard or titan in the investment banking industry is Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs’ practice of over leveraging its assets led to Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley following suit. Leveraging is a financial ratio measuring a company’s debt to assets. While overleveraging may result in greater returns and maximization of gains, the unintended consequence is costlier rates of borrowing and riskier bets incurred by the company. Sorkin notes the trend with the following: “Lehman was leveraged 30:7 to 1; Merrill Lynch was only slightly better, at 26.9 to 1. Paulson knew that Merrill, like Lehman, was awash in bad assets” (72). The notion that Merrill Lynch operated in the short term in relying on firm rather than client money served as a red herring to the firm’s insolvency in the subsequent months.

Sorkin noting the sequence of events that transpired in the latter months of 2008 states: “Each of the former Big Five investment banks failed, was sold, or was converted into a bank holding company. Two mortgage-lending giants and the world’s largest insurer were placed under government control” (529). One can easily vilify the greed and hubris that typifies Wall Street. The only figure that Sorkin ascribes a degree of humility to is Treasury Sec. Paulson. Paulson in his brief tenure was assailed by the ‘left’ and ‘right’ of the political spectrum for his decision making and bore the media purported moniker of ‘Mr. Bailout.’

Paulson was an unlikely candidate for the position of Treasury Secretary. He had served in Goldman Sachs for 32 years, accumulating a personal net worth of an estimated $700 million in the process. The opportunity to shape history amidst the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression outweighed the contentious nature of the Treasury Secretary position in a lame duck Administration. Sorkin on Paulson foreseeing the impending fiasco states: “The sub prime mortgage mess, which had already begun to have repercussions. Bear Stearns and others were deeply involved in this business, and he needed to find a way to obtain “wind down authority” (49). Paulson had a vested interest in extending the ‘wind authority’ to Goldman Sachs and other investment banks as the aforementioned institutions lacked expansive failsafe preventative measures.

The unprecedented government intervention to temper the precipitous decline in the financial markets resulted in Paulson assuming the role of a scapegoat. The Treasury Sec. was adamant in his decision of forcing Lehman Brothers towards a path of insolvency, while providing a direct taxpayer funded financial pipeline to AIG. It is disparaging to note that AIG received $60 billion in TARP funds tabulating to an 80% ownership stakes by the American taxpayer. Goldman Sachs in a roundabout manner received $12.9 billion from the AIG bailout. This poses an incriminating conflict of interest on the part of former Goldman Sachs CEO turned Treasury Sec. Paulson’s role in guiding the AIG bailout.

“Too Big To Fail” will prove a compelling read to business aficionados and more importantly the American public. The $700 bailout has been described among commentators as both a necessary evil and corporate welfare. If you are looking to arrive at your own opinion, Sorkin’s book is a great place to start.

At the movie’s otherwise stirring conclusion, he proposes that capitalism be replaced with “democracy”.  Although this sounds like a nice idea, democracy is a political system, one that is best accompanied by capitalism.  Moore should have more clearly made the point that capitalism is not inherently structured to destroy equality, but that if the wrong people are allowed to shape it then that occurrence will be inevitable.
Despite the above issue, and in spite of some over the top grandstanding by Mr. Moore, Capitalism is a must-see movie for anyone interested in exploring the root causes of our current economic crisis.  It shows that America has not been undone by irresponsible homeowners, or by lazy workers, or even by illegal immigrants.  Rather, the entire American public has been betrayed by a select group of powerful men whose unquenchable thirst for wealth is threatening to tear apart the fabric of this great nation.  Although it is clearly aimed at progressive audiences, I urge people of all political biases to see this movie, and to strive to reclaim our country from those who have discreetly stolen it from us.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars.

Although CBGB's is long gone, evidence of its existence are everywhere.

On the Bowery in New York City in the 1970s, a crappy little bar would become a monument in the history of rock & roll. For 33 years, CBGB & OMFUG, or Country, Blue Grass, Blues, and Other Music for Uplifting Gormandizers, was located at 315 Bowery & Bleecker Street. The club was founded in 1973 by owner Hilly Kristal, who originally intended to host artists in the genres that the title implies, but in bands like The Ramones and Television, who were the first punk bands to play the venue, Kristal found a pleasant surprise – not only a new breed of rock music, but a new anti-establishment attitude and a fashion and performance style that would be remembered and emulated for decades to come.

Other groups like The Talking Heads, Blondie, and The Patti Smith Group made the club famous, but as punk died CBGB still functioned as a popular venue for emerging artists up until it closed down.

Kristal owed tens of thousands of dollars in back rent to the Bowery Residents Committee, and after a legal battle ensued and rent was eventually doubled, keeping CBGB open was simply unaffordable. On October 15, 2006, the club hosted its final show, and on October 31, the CBGB store closed down, eliminating an important landmark from the Bowery forever.

Ideas to reconstruct CBGB in Las Vegas were not materialized, as Hilly Kristal passed away in 2007 from lung cancer at the age of 75. The original awning and many other artifacts from the club, such as some sound equipment, some of the walls, and a urinal can be found at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Annex NYC, located at 76 Mercer Street, about a ten minute walk from Bowery & Bleecker. The website, www.cbgb.com, is still up and running, and provides interesting information about the history of the club, links to the online store, a cool 360 degree virtual tour.

The John Varvatos store now occupies 315 Bowery & Bleecker Street in place of CBGB OMFUG

Today, 315 Bowery & Bleecker Street is home to a John Varvatos store, which opened in 2008. It’s a great place to go if you’re in the market for all things leather and grossly overpriced, or if you just want to take in what remains of the walls of CBGB, which were covered in graffiti, fliers, stickers, and possibly a decent amount of blood and other bodily fluids (rock & roll!).

Though the infamous club no longer remains and the street seems to have mellowed over the past three years, Bowery & Bleecker Street is still a highly recommended area for the music fanatic or the modern day beatnik looking for something to do over the weekend. Some of the gems in the immediate vicinity include the Morrison Hotel Gallery of music photography next door to the Varvatos store, he Bowery Poetry Club across the street, and Think coffee shop, a quaint shop with Fair Trade shade grown and organic coffee that is open daily until 11:30 p.m.

Like the film before it, Paranormal Activity begins and ends with the same cinematic device that Blair Witch uses; realism. Paramount Pictures makes the audience believe that the film is footage found from a camera chronicling the ignominious fates of aspiring film-makers who ventured too deep into the supernatural. Because this trope has been used in Blair Witch and other films such as Cannibal Holocaust, Cloverfield, and REC, it seems rather trite. However, by the finale Paranormal seems even more chilling than the aforementioned films. Despite the similarities, Peli’s film is far superior to the Blair Witch Project in terms of quality.

Honey, is that you standing by the door?

The unlucky couple in the film, Katie and Micah, is portrayed by Katie Featherston and Micah Stout, both debuting as film actors. Their roles were particularly demanding because of the lack of a script; they were only given an outline and were expected to improvise their dialogue. As a result, the dialogue flows well and seems natural. The characters are consequently much easier to relate to and easier to root for. This makes the film more terrifying as the audience does not want to see the characters come to any harm, a direct contrast to Blair Witch, when I was personally rooting for the Witch to kill those arrogant students. Although Micah can be quite dense and tactless and Katie somewhat strung out, these faults make them more endearing, and let’s face it, who wouldn’t be strung out while being stalked by a literal demon?

The demon of the film is never fully explained. Because of its demonic status, there is no need to delve into its past nor do the characters really seek to communicate with it. In fact, Katie specifically does not wish to contact it, in contrast to other horror films where the protagonists usually try to seek some way to approach their tormentors.

Because the demon remains unexplained throughout, the audience’s imagination runs amok, and this, in the same vein as Jaws, makes the villain more terrifying. It is explained that an evil spirit has been haunting Katie since she was only eight years old, and that while it sometimes leaves her alone for years, it always returns again. The demon has also caused physical harm as it is heavily implied that it was responsible for the loss of Katie’s child hood home in a fire soon after the first haunting began.

Now, after years of dormancy, it has come back into Katie’s life, prompting Micah to purchase a camera to record any activity.

The demon starts off small at first, spending its time knocking on walls, flicking lights and messing with Katie’s keys. The couple consults a psychic who tells them that the beast feeds on negative energy to become stronger, and the best way to counter the demon is to not let it get to them. But, as Micah sets up the camera to capture the haunting, he antagonizes the creature, causing it to resort to more terrifying methods to antagonize the couple so they can release more negative energy, beginning a vicious cycle as it increases its strength and leads to the horrifying finale.

Paranormal Activity has been marketed as the “most horrifying film ever,” which is more a sign of the state of horror films than it is about the quality of the film. As demonstrated by the Saw franchise, Hostel, and various other Eli Roth and Rob Zombie films, horror today is all about gore and mutilation. Subtle, creeping horror films have unfortunately been rarities in recent horror cinema, which is a big reason why this film was so overly hyped.

Although it doesn’t quite live up to the “most horrifying” standard, it sure comes close, and its success will hopefully see a flowering of non-gory horror films.

Review: 3.5 out of 5 Stars

Milk premieres tonight on HBO.

Perhaps they could have taken cues from Gus Van Sant’s latest biopic Milk, a film as much about the gay rights movement as it is about title character Harvey Milk. That may be because Milk and the gay rights movement are so intertwined.

Harvey Milk moved to San Francisco from New York in the seventies, seeking refuge from discrimination and misunderstanding and a place where he could build a community that was both tolerant and proactive for gay rights.

That community turned out to be the famous Castro district of San Francisco, a neighborhood still very much defined by a large LGBTA population. Milk settled into the neighborhood, opened a business and then proceeded to launch political campaigns, running for vacant seats on the city council and state assembly.

The role of Harvey Milk is played to perfection by Sean Penn, who captures the nuances and quirks that Milk was known for. But the true appeal of the film stems from the ensemble cast. James Franco and Diego Luna take turns as Milk’s lovers, both delivering inspired performances. Emile Hirsch, the apparent understudy of Sean Penn, joins Alison Pill, Lucas Grabeel and a half dozen others as the campaign staff for Milk’s political bids.

And then of course there’s Josh Brolin, who adds tension and suspense to the role of Assemblyman Dan White. Anyone familiar with the story of Harvey Milk knows how White fits into this whole equation, yet Brolin is able to capture the viewer’s attention and make him question what he thought he knew.

Van Sant gives the movie the feel of a documentary, making use of old footage and occasional shots with a handheld camera. Van Sant is less concerned with the life story of Harvey Milk as he is about the legacy and impact that his life had. Milk is defined in the movie through his actions, not so much by his life story. A police roundup of homosexuals at a bar one night sends Milk to the streets, taking up position atop a plastic crate to calm down residents. A Teamsters boycott of Coors beer leads Milk to craft a surprising alliance between one of the largest unions and the gay community. And continual discrimination leads Milk to run for office several times before he finally manages to secure enough votes.

Watching the movie after the historic elections in 2008 is especially rewarding. It takes very little effort to draw historical comparisons between the film and what transpired both nationally and in California. Thirty years before Proposition 8, there was Proposition 6, the Briggs Initiative that would have banned gay men and women from teaching in public schools. Thirty years before Barack Obama became the first black president, Harvey Milk became the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California.

Go see this movie for entertainment. But watch this movie for the lesson it teaches us.

Milk is available now on DVD, and will begin airing on HBO starting tonight.

Down under the Manhattan/Brooklyn overpass, there is a pizzeria.

Grimaldi’s has been a New York institution for decades, and it attracts scores of New Yorkers, tourists and pizza connoisseurs to its small, cozy shop in what’s known as DUMBO (see first sentence).

The line on a recent Sunday was unbelievable. It snaked out the store and down the block, and resembled lines that form ahead of a concert by a popular band, not a pizza joint. If you go, bring someone who has some reading to do, because the line, which indiscriminately makes no separate line for those who are taking out, will take quite a while.

The Manhattan Bridge as seen from the DUMBO Flea Market

While your placeholder waits, there are a number of things to explore nearby. But during these fall weekends, the best place to spend your afternoon is the DUMBO flea market and farmers market. Both feature local producers and shop owners, and both attract a younger, painfully hip smorgasbord of New Yorkers: blasé, free-spirited college students from NYU and Columbia; local, 30something residents pushing strollers; and wayward tourists who clearly stumbled upon DUMBO by happy accident.

The flea market offers up a range of goods. Used clothing can be found in many of the tents, as can old and odd pieces of furniture, window dressings, books and a wide range of knick-knacks. But even if used goods don’t float your boat, walking around the space is itself a treat. The market, housed directly under the Brooklyn Bridge, provides some of the city’s best views of Manhattan. And an adjacent nearby park puts you right on the harbor.

The farmers’ market is less impressive, though just as unique and popular. If Grismaldi’s line is unbearable, pick up some picnic food and take it to the park. Or if you are really craving pizza, the flea market has its own brick-oven pizza vendor and local bakery tent right by the entrance.

And for dessert, head to nearby Jacques Torres Chocolates. The shop looks like it was plucked out of a small village in Switzerland, complete with ornate decorations, a stove for warming their cookies, and of course, delicious chocolate.

Cost: $$$$$

Time: 3 to 4 hours

Directions: A/C Subway to High Street; F Subway to York Street; or 2/3 Subway to Clark Street. Click for full directions.

Brad Pitt wants his scalps.

Some directors/writers, notably George Lucas, have never been blessed in writing dialogue, and their movies suffer as a result. Tarantino is the polar opposite; he is the master of creating tension despite the length of some of his film’s conversations. There is a wonderful scene in the beginning of the film where Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (also known as the Jew Hunter) genially asks a French farmer in his own house about Jewish families in the area. The farmer hems and haws while Col. Landa subtly threatens the farmer with dire consequences for him and his three daughters. The effect keeps the audience on the edge of their seats trying to see which one will crack first…and then the camera pans down under the wooden floor of the kitchen to reveal a hidden Jewish family, petrified in horror and desperately attempting to keep silent, as the friendly conversation continues overhead The audience’s stress level is ratcheted up, really almost against their will as they wait to see who will win this battle of wills. Tarantino’s other two major trademarks: his tributes to past films and his penchant for violence are also paramount in the film. Inglourious Basterds will remind moviegoers of the Clint Eastwood/Charles Bronson “spaghetti western” films. The twanging banjos in the soundtrack will drive this point home with a sledgehammer to the point of obnoxiousness. Add this to the film noir effect from “Casablanca” and you have one weird film that somehow works.

The advertising for Inglourious Basterds featured Brad Pitt front and center, yet for all of the focus on him and the rest of the “Basterds”, they are barely in half of the film, which is a good thing since they are perhaps the weakest part of the film. Pitt, who portrays Lt. Aldo Raine, is funny, no doubt, but he doesn’t bring anything substantial to his role as leader of the Basterds besides a ridiculous Southern accent and a few well-timed witticisms. Two other actors, the Austrian-born Christoph Waltz and the French-born Melanie Laurent steal the show. Waltz, who portrays the aforementioned Colonel Hans Landa, deserves to earn an Oscar nomination, in my opinion with his portrayal of the genial, charming yet chilling “Jew-hunter”. It is odd that the scariest Nazi is Landa, since Hitler, Goebbels, Bohrmann, and Goering are prominent, but Waltz manages to deliver an affable Nazi who borders on the edge of absurdity, who also masks a terrifying relentlessness, determination and ingenuity. Ms. Laurent portrays the vengeful Jewish survivor Shoshanna, the sole survivor of her family from one of Landa’s hunts, who is running a Parisian theater in disguise as a gentile. After she crosses paths with German war hero Frederick Zoller and Joseph Goebbels in Paris, she commences her plan of revenge along with her African-French boyfriend Marcel. Just like Uma Thurman (Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill 1 & 2) and Pam Grier (Jackie Brown), Laurent is one of Tarantino’s “femme fatales”. The performances by Laurent and Waltz by far the more intriguing portions of the film and it saddens me that “Basterds” were given top billing in the title.

Because Quentin Tarantino has pulled out all of his usual directorial techniques and styles, it appeals to a certain fan base. Simply stated, those who like Tarantino films will love it, but those who do not will consider it trash. Those who are only casually familiar with his work should be reminded that Tarantino definitely has a mind of his own, and will not sacrifice his vision to make his film more palatable to the average filmgoer, which is especially evident in certain portions of the film where he decides to ignore actual history in favor of his own vision. Perhaps it’s not as good as Pulp Fiction, but I would rate it as his second best film.

Review: 4 out of 5 stars