I’m ashamed to say it, but I think I’ve taught more LSAT courses, to more people, than just about anyone else in this world of ours.  At some point along the way, I started a company called Blueprint that does the same.  It’s a strange vantage point that I’ve somehow fallen into, as I’m repeatedly confronted with a rather narrow cross-section of humanity (aspiring lawyers) during what they believe to be the most stressful time of their lives (which will, no doubt, be dwarfed by future harrowing events the like of which they’ve not yet conceived.)

The cyclical nature of LSAT preparation forces a blighted few of us to answer the same questions regarding the LSAT ad infinitum.  Part of the motivation for this blog is to set forth some provisional answers regarding these issues.  Another motive is to address some broader cultural issues that may be of interest to students studying for this exam.  Some of these include the nature of genius, the efficacy of “smart drugs”, and issues regarding the lives of lawyers generally.

The last motive is to assure that I don’t do any work on a languishing dissertation in philosophy that I’m fairly certain won’t write itself.

As for the rest, I like Illy cafe, motorcycles, and Apple Computer.  I’m either indifferent toward or actively dislike most everything else.

In particular, I loath certain expressions (which are sadly in vogue of late) that express trivial truth, such as  “It is what is is.”  Also, I die a little when I hear locutions that are apparently devoid of any content, such as “whatever.”  Lastly, I’m annoyed by the use of expressions that strive at meaning, but apply improper predicates, such as “Let’s be real,” (as if we could be unreal), when what is meant is that we ought to try to be authentic or sincere.

Still worse are the misapplication of improper predicates, such as the dreaded, “Real knows real.”  But I digress.

Thoughts? You can reach me at loathing@moststronglysupported.com.