#pod1

6/8 POD 1: Summary

- quad activation def poorer but still able to lock out and activate quad to do standing hip ABD and straight leg hip FLX at MD’s office

- ROM def more difficult. Struggled to get to 90. (0-90ish)

- stiff, maybe 5/10 pain when ranging. Pain into flexion and on the initial return to extension

-didn’t take Tramadol until PM right before bed as the pain just wouldn’t settle as it did the whole day even in a comfortable supine position

- def needed crutches to walk around. Allowed to do WBAT just standing but start with 30% and increase daily with walking with crutches

6/8 POD 1: range of motion

- struggled to get to 80-90deg of flexion

To me, the Oxfam’s definition would fit with my perspective of a global citizen. The definition of Global Citizen in the Financial Times website is saying people must be a professional to be a global citizen. That I do not agree at all. I mean being a global citizen means that you kind of know what is going on around the world, and respects and values diversity as a whole. This doesn’t mean any stereotyping of people, gender or race or religion. Yes there is whole thing of making the world a better place, but I think there is more to that than just making the world a better place or being someone influential. Being a global citizen is not to be ignorance to the surrounding around them and take responsibility for everything that they have done. Also, this has to been done without an ulterior motive but will good intention. (Easier said than done)

Financial time definition is more suited for big people in corporates and only thinking of making their authority and influence more noticeable to the world. Yes, they are doing the world a favour but I do think they are just thinking about how deep their pockets are and how much power they hold in this world.

Pod 1: Global Citizen Task 1

To what extent do characters in the film display     aspects of Sennett’s New Capitalism personality traits? Which characters     are they? Why do they seem to display these characteristics? Genetics or     environment?

Ryan Bingham – Delayering other people from their jobs. He is in some sense getting rid of layers within the organization as he acts as the hired company HR department as he is letting go employees from their jobs. He also in a way comfort the employees being let go by saying this “Anybody who ever built an empire, or changed the world, sat where you are now. And it’s because they sat there that they were able to do it.” This is my favourite line from the film. I think it’s probably the environment he is in and hence he shows these characteristics.

Alex Goran – Casualization in the relationship with Ryan. She met Ryan in a bar during one of their business trip. After some casual talking and drinks, they ended in casual sexual relationship. During their business trips. Ryan and Alex will always find time to meet up. But only till the end of the movie, the viewers only know that Alex was a married woman with kids and a husband. She even said that Ryan is an escape from her “real life”, saying that Ryan is a parenthesis. She displays these characteristics is because of her environment.

Natalie Keener – Non-linear sequencing in the company. She a brand new employee to the Ryan’s company and because she has a relationship commitment, she gave a solution to whole company flying around the country “problem”. She wanted to be more “settled” rather than traveling 322 days per year because of her relationship. She really does focus on problem-solving rather than fixed-function labour. She tried to change Ryan’s way of life and she indeed did an impact of Ryan’s life. So her characteristics is shown because of her way of life.

  To what extent do you think the film explores aspects of Sennett’s argument about talent and uselessness?

What is Sennett’s view on talent and uselessness? Sennett sees the specter of uselessness as a major source of anxiety in society but is redefined by institutional change and shaped by distinctive forces: the global labour supply: when one’s skills are easily replaced by another labour force in another part of the world; automation and the management of ageing. To an extent, the movie actually does portrays some aspects of this as where the employees that were laid off were talking about younger people taking over their jobs and such. Also, the employees that were let go were showing uselessness to Ryan as their job is taken away from them.

What kind of business organisations are the target of     this movie’s critique? Does this fit with those mentioned by Sennett?

I don’t think any business organisations are being targeted by this movie in any way in my opinion. The company in the movie, CTC, which Ryan and Natalie work for is presented as simply ‘doing their job’ or providing a service. If there is any critique, that will be directed at the companies who hired Ryan and Natalie’s Company to fire their staff rather than doing it themselves deeming them too cowardice.

What do you think about the values promoted by the     movie? Is it romantic nonsense given the rise of New Capitalism and     economic globalisation?