To better reflect her single status, Cali Barbie will wear board shorts and a bikini top, metal hoop earrings, and have a deeper tan.

-- Barbie and Ken split up

---

Clueless: Justice Scalia publicly underlined his inability to understand why going on an extended trip with the subject of a lawsuit, paid for by a representative of the group said individual is accused of wrongly protecting from public view, and involving the person directly, not in name only, is and appears to be a conflict of interest. Meanwhile, I recently heard that Justice Breyer was the only justice was at the President's State of the Union. Interesting.

---

I caught Michael J. Fox on Conan (he's in Toronto this week; nice city ... artificial looking baseball stadium ... tasty tofu dogs provided in hot dog carts) last night ... he didn't seem 100% well, but that is to be expected, given his current struggles with a horrible disease. Cheers that he is well enough to guest star on the show Scrubs, and I wish him and his family the best. I still recall a touching scene on the show Family Ties in which his character shows his true feelings for the woman (Tracy Pollan aka Ellen Reed) who later became his wife in real life. Fox also made a self-depreciating remark about a lesser known film of his entitled Life with Mikey, which actually was a nice little film.

---

Crossing the Line: I supplied some viewpoints yesterday on the proposed amendment to the Constitution regarding blocking gay marriage, while in the past doing the same for interpreting the current constitutions (state and/or federal) in matters relating to homosexuals. I come at this subject with a deep interest in the broad and very important issues involved in matters relating to equality, sexuality, and ultimately individual liberty. [For instance, I find the Attorney General Ashcroft's decision to subpoena medical records to investigate partial birth abortion use a serious threat to privacy, especially since he defends it (2/12) by diminishing the importance of medical privacy.]

All the same, I perhaps was a bit to urbane about the whole thing. Let me be blunt ... it SICKENS me that the freaking President of the United States supports a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (others involving such matters as freedom of expression, trial rights, equality, voting rights, and so forth) to protect the "sanctity of marriage." [Let's be honest and admit this is what is at stake here for these people, not some neutral idea like "judicial restraint."]

It is not horrible to underline that good people can disagree with the practice; I know such people, and they deserve recognition. It is not horrible (if in my view wrong) to argue states should be able to ban gay marriages, especially since most states now do just that. An amendment to the Constitution that sets things in stone, even when state courts interpret their own constitutions, however, crosses the line. And, if it's only for political ends, it is even worse. How about protecting the "sanctity" of the Constitution, Mr. President?

---

Happy Birthday: Christina Ricci ... oh, and Abraham Lincoln.