You know, I just don't know how to schedual my workouts and Tae Kwon Do sessions. I think that four workout days and three tae kwon do days in a week sound pretty good. I could do chest, tris, and shoulders on Sunday, Tae Kwon do on Monday, quads and hams on Tuesday, Tae Kwon Do on Wednesday, back and bis on Thursdays, Tae Kwon Do on Fridays, Calves and inner, outer and glutes on Saturday. I like that schedual because my time is not fully committed to one area of interest. I used to work out every day of the week. I also can't do that anymore because my interests in the martial arts prohibit me from emulating Markus Ruhl. The German Giant! That guy is swool. I think that's how you speel swool. As in it's swoolen. Hum, maybe it's swolen. Whatever, who cares? An English teacher ya but on stream of consiousness? Besides, what if my consiousness doesn't want me to spell it right. Maybe my mind is secretly liberal and is telling me to go against the 'establishment'. 'Damn the Man' and 'down with big brother'  and all of that. Maybe it's my secret way of avoiding conformity. That all sounds like bullshit to me but who can say otherwise besides me. I guess everyone now that I've said it's b. s. but that's not the point. The point is, of this tiny fragment of thought anyway, is that I could basically come up withany excuse I wanted to explain my actions and no one could say otherwise. Why can't you go up on the 'stand' and declare yourself that you were insane at the time of the murder. I mean, expertise and all that junk doesn't insure that from one, or maybe even no meeting at all, meeting a psychologist can determine that the accused was insane at the time of the crime. Does it really even make it more likely? Lets say that my mom was killed. I'd be pretty pissed and I'd break things and fight and all that fun stuff but would I classify myself as insane at the time? No, to myself anyway. If it could get me out of trouble ya, but I would know that I was really just pissed off and sad and all like that. But whatever, how can I talk about this? I have no credentials. Which brings up another point, why do you need credentials? Why do people always quote other people in research papers. I'm mostly talking about philosophy papers and diplomatic position papers. Why quote Plato, was he so enormously intellegent that all your oqn thoughts are irrelevent? Why not write a paper about what you think? Maybe you have read some of Plato's writing, then perhaps you should discuss your thoughts on that but why form an opinion entirely off what other people have said? What does that make you?  A follower, a person who does nothing but agrees. Whats that all about? How could anyone live just agreeing. It really does annoy me though, how people, some people, just quote other people. It's like you can't be wrong if you go with what some dead guy said. I say go with what you say. What's wrong with that. I'm going to make it a point to quote myself int he next paper I write fro psychology. I know that writing a position paper on an issue is your opinion but is it really YOUR opinion if you've already read what someone else has to say. I'd like to do nothing but read purely data filled reports and form my own opinions on what is going on. I also refuse to validate my position by incorporating a quote from a famous dead guy, or an alive one. What I say has importance because I am intelligent. 

Big Five personality labels — Extraversion: y, Neuroticism: n, Agreeableness: n, Conscientiousness: n, Openness: y