Klossner: Local traffic only

I live in a small town (pop. 7,500-ish) in southern Maine. The street I live on is a small side street just outside of the town center. This street attaches to one of the main thoroughfares in our burb. Let me rephrase that --  the only thoroughfare in our town. This means my street becomes a de-facto bypass when we have backups caused by morning, afternoon, and all-summer-long rush hours. (I know many of you live in the greater D.C. area. Please don't laugh when I use the term "rush hour.")My town has dealt with this issue by putting signs at the end of my street that say "Local Traffic Only." To the best of my knowledge, in the nine years I have lived here no one has ever been cited, or even stopped, for being a nonlocal traveller. Heck, I don't even know if anyone notices the signs any more. This has become my personal poster child (sign child?) for unenforceable measures. If the town doesn't want nonresidents to drive on my street (which is probably vulnerable on a legal basis) they have sure picked a quiet way to show it. Personally, I would rather have back the one-foot wide by two feet high visual space that the sign now blocks.This brings me to this week's editorial subject. The presidential candidates have been vague regarding plans for innovation in government technology.First off, I'm not so sure that this is such a major issue for the majority of voters. Granted, I'd give my vote to the candidate who promised capital punishment for the person who keeps sending me Angelina Jolie videos spam, but I don't expect to hear it in any of the convention speeches this week.A recent found that the United States lagged behind other nations in technology advances, including percentages of citizens with broadband access. I noticed that many of the nations on that list ahead of the United States were countries whose government installed the broadband, as opposed to letting private industry do it. To refer back to my small Maine community again, I don't think making the two-block downtown wireless would lead any local government to-do lists, much less get folks excited on a state or federal level. (To make it relevant, if a candidate proposed installing a broadband system that would heat homes this winter, they'd be elected king for life.)Also, let's face it. It's hard to make promises regarding technology because the darn things usually clash with existing policies. As an example, everyone is hot to install Web 2.0 technologies in their workplace right now, forgetting that so far these very technologies have mixed security standards. People who have expertise with technology have troubles making this work -- how do we expect a candidate, who has one or two other pressing issues on his mind, to make a cutting-edge proposal?Would it be helpful if the candidates' came right out and said "Sorry, tech people. This doesn't rise to the top of the list. You'll have to trust me after I get elected. Maybe I'll see if I can get sworn in by e-mail, just to put you at ease?"So, like the unenforceable sign that sits on the end of my street, I don't put stock in the candidates' technology promises. I'll just wait for the blog posting on Jan. 21, 2009.