2: The proccess of getting to this blog

A couple years ago, I wanted a google calendar. I had to get a google account to get a calendar, which was fine. I enrolled in a university where the email service was soon changed to being some version of gmail. This is also fine. Now this means I have 2 gmail accounts. For a while my school account would not support other features and even now I don't think blogging is available to me, so I send and receive email through my school account and keep my calendar, documents and blog on my preexisting account. This could also be fine, accept that...

• When I log on to my email, the computer always seems to assume I want the unused email, even when I type my school email info into the login screen, for some reason it takes me first to my empty email folder and then allows me to switch accounts if I would like to.
• Occasionally, google goes through a faze during which it only allows you to view documents attached to the first account you logged into, so while I may be logged into to accounts at once, if I want to edit a document, I must first sign out of all accounts, then log in again in the opposite order.
• It took me 7 minutes to access this blog today. First I typed "blogger.com" into my task bar and waited, it redirected me to the login page for my school website. I then searched for blogger and clicked the link-same problem. Feeling creative, I went to a friends blog and clicked "follow" to force it to ask me if I want to sign in. Why yes, yes I do. I clicked the corresponding button and was redirected to the school login page. Ok. I login with the school and it tells me I have attempted to do something invalid. I go to google calendar which is of course displaying the non-school login name and go to the blog tab. It asks me if I would like to create a blog account under my school login id. I click "login under a different name" and it offers me the school account again. I log out, log back in and click the same button and here I am. The worst part is, I don't know what I did differently the second time. Every time I post a blog entry, I will be forced to spend 7 minutes looking.

All of this would be acceptable for me. I can forgive google for its quirks and oddities. It is made by humans with their own imperfections. Maybe someone out there is working on this very problem right now. The biggest problem with this whole thing is:

• Google is taking over the world and computer geeks are happy about it. Despite the joke level failure of google+, everyone still adores google and I feel like I'm pointing out that the emperor is naked when I get frustrated by a small 7 minute waste of time. It makes me worry that maybe it's not google. Maybe it's me.
  

1: the word "uncostitutional"

I would like to delete this word from the English language. I myself, have only used it to quote or mock other people, so it will not be a personal loss of any kind. If only other people could stop using it on TV, the internet or around me, I could pretend it didn't exist.
Maybe I could just begin a petition to declare "unconstitutional" a vulgar and inappropriate word. Then I could act as exasperated as I actually am every time someone uses it. I could say "Really, news anchor, you are going to stoop to using THAT word. On national television?!" and everyone around me would shake their heads sadly and think just what I am thinking "The world is deteriorating." Of course, they would be thinking it was because of all the cussin' kids do now-a-days and I would be thinking something else. Here is what I think:
Just using this word in conversation implies a few horrible things are going on in your brain:

• You are thinking that the rights and privileges that we call "human rights" are given to us by a birthplace, by a piece of paper or even worse by some very human men who came from a society with its very own flaws over 2 hundred years ago. You think that people who are born in Mexico do not share these rights, or you think that if we found out that the wording had been changed by some no-name secretary (from the original wording of the god-like founding fathers), that our whole society would collapse.
  
• You think that there is something pure about the morals put down on paper by these fully human and vulnerable dead men. You think that before we look to our hearts, we should look to theirs.
  
• You think that the correct reading of these words will show us the true and right way to live. You think that there is some "correct" way of governing which applied in 1800 and will apply just as well in 2000. This is similar to how many people feel about the bible, but it makes less sense. No one is claiming that these guys are gods.
  

These points are not even taking into account that the constitution cannot be applied to whatever you are trying to apply it to. There is nothing in the constitution about mandatory drug testing, or racial profiling or gay marriage. There are purposely vague rules about giving everyone freedom and liberty (another candidate for a declaration of vulgarity. What does this word even mean?) for all, but I guarantee that your opponent can almost ALWAYS use the same statement to support their own point.
The rules which are specific are suspect in their very own ways. There are more than 20 mistakes which have had to be corrected so far (that's what amendments are). It is therefore silly to tell someone that they are wrong because the constitution says so, unless you think that we should have slavery, only let a dozen or so people vote, and simultaneously ban and not ban alcohol.
For those of you who are into this word, and there are a lot of you (and you are loud) I may be willing accept the following compromise:
"Hence forth, the word 'constitutional' will refer to something which is currently allowable by the constitution as it stands. The word will not constitute an argument for or against something other than in a 'well, slavery has worked just fine for us for 80 years' sort of way. It will have at its very basis a temporary debatable feel and an understanding that the rules were made to be rewritten and that changing the laws to fit the times was intended by our founding fathers, who were imperfect men who happened to accomplish some pretty good stuff in their times."
Take it or leave it.