While a legal scholar can certainly make recommendations about what the law should be, those recommendations should never be done under the guise of saying what the law is. I worry about international legal scholars in particular, because unlike in much of domestic law, there is no stare decisis in international law, and state practice can often be difficult to assess. There is clearly a temptation to say that a rule of customary international law exists because one wants it do exist, rather than because the putative rule is truly controlling (reflected in state practice) and authoritative (believed by states to be the law).Among other things, this is why the impeachment of George W. Bush will have to be a domestic affair.
Blogging will be light for the foreseeable future: 100 degree fevers don't let me sit at the computer for long, and there's that "real life" stuff to get done, too.
And, continuing the wishful thinking theme, the difference between settled and frontiers in science is a challenge, as well. And Al Gore gives great speeches.
Update: The fever is mostly gone, but the energy's not back. I don't usually agree with Daniel Pipes, but in this case he's disagreeing with the Pope and I think Pipes is closer than Pope on this one: all sorts of "divinely given" words have been reinterpreted through the ages, updated, etc.; there's no reason to think that Islam won't go through a similar evolution (though, of course, it will probably look nothing like the process of either Christianity or Judaism...)