NJCubScouter

Its Trail Day says: You can collect all the info you want but how it is used is the issue. If any information is collected improperly a judge will exclude it from trial so it can't be used. Your second sentence is generally true although the "exclusionary rule" has some exceptions and loopholes to it. But I think it misses the point. I have not been talking about people who commit crimes. I actually don't have a problem if the government restricts itself to collecting and using "data" for legitimate law enforcement purposes. I want the "bad guys" caught as much as anyone else. My issue is that I think that there is too much of a potential for the "use" of the information to go beyond those legitimate purposes. And i'm not making up some fantasy here, I am looking back only 30+ years and seeing what the government actually did in an overreaction to protest by some of its citizens, and imagining how that might play out today, when the amount of information in databases, and the speed and sophistication in accessing it, sorting it and finding "patterns" in it, have increased exponentially. I guess this will come across as partisan, but when I listen to someone like John Ashcroft, I really don't get much of a warm fuzzy feeling that assures me that all of this information will be used for proper purposes. The thing with John Poindexter and the "privatizing" of the data-mining initiative, discussed by someone else earlier, only add to that concern. So, ITD, "how it is used" is indeed the issue, but the criminal justice system and its "exclusionary rule" do not provide the solution. So I'm still stuck back on the first part of the sentence, "You can collect all the info you want." I'd like the government, and each particular part of the government, to have only the information it needs to have, with restrictions on its use. As I suggested in an earlier post, maybe I am just old-fashioned in a pre-9/11 sort of way and perhaps a pre-"information superhighway" sort of way.

Adrian, basically what you are saying is that I shouldn't worry about one particular action by the government because there are other actions by the government that are more worrisome. I guess the short answer is, I'll worry about how far the government can go in snooping on people, and you can worry about the government telling you where to raise chickens. (I understand that the chickens were just an example, but when I thought of that sentence, I couldn't help myself.) People can obviously disagree or agree with me about whether the Patriot Act is something to be concerned about, but I don't know what the point is of saying it is "the least of our concerns." I guess most of us, including me, have sort of internalized the fact that the government exists, and that it regulates and taxes people and businesses, including zoning laws that are sometimes unfriendly to chicken-raising and other pursuits. You apparently have not. I guess another way of saying this is that most people expect the government to tax and regulate, have accepted it as part of the kind of government we have, and have learned to live with it even if we don't necessarily like all aspects of it. However, we (I guess that's the editorial we) have not learned to live with the government snooping into what we are reading or looking at on our computers, and we don't view that as being inherent in our governmental system. And you, on the other hand, have not learned to live with the taxing and the regulating. As a result, when I raise an issue of government snooping, most other people say either, right, that's bad (or something to be concerned about), or it's not bad because it's necessary to do this to catch the bad guys. It is only you who adds, but what what about the taxing and the regulating. For most of the rest of us, these are sleeping dogs. However, Adrian, since I have known "libertarians" my entire adult life, I do understand the obsession, even though I don't share it.

Ok, FOG, perhaps you'd like to list the court opinions you have read, in which "small towns" were succesfully sued to remove "Christmas scenes," but with no "town residents" as plaintiffs. But seriously (folks), here is an article (actually its a letter from the New Jersey League of Municipalities to its member-mayors) that verifies that "standing" is indeed an issue that must be "won" by the plaintiffs in every case. I didn't choose it because it is from NJ, but because it was the first thing to come up on a Yahoo search, it seems to state the law pretty well, and it happens to be from an organization that is "pro town" and includes as its members some of the cities and towns that have been sued on this subject. http://www.njslom.org/ml121202.html

In fact, I'm surprised that the government even felt it necessary to notify the public. Maybe they figured that a lot of people were making the same vague, almost "unconscious" assumption that I was probably making, that my library records were NOT open for the public to see, and that the government could see them only if I were an actual suspect in a crime or the government had some other really good reason for getting a search warrant. Maybe that assumption was incorrect all along. But as I said, I couldn't have been alone, because the government did feel the need to require the library to put up the sign. Adrian, I wonder how far you would take this. Does it apply to every area of government activity? My driving record is kept on a state-owned computer, does everybody have the right to see it? (The current answer is no, you have to be connected to law enforcement to see it, though my insurance company has every right to make me sign a paper that lets them see it, as a condition of insuring me.) If I were on any government-assisted health program, does everybody have the right to see my medical records? Or better yet, if I were a government employee with government-paid health insurance, are my medical records open to the public? (Currently, no to both.) Although the salaries of most public employees ARE a matter of public record, what about their personnel evaluations? (Currently, no.) How far would you go? Or maybe you think that people who do nothing wrong shouldn't worry about what other people or the government know about them. Your joking dismissal of my "J. Edgar Hoover" reference suggests that might be the case.

KoreaScouter, I appreciate the information about how terrorists and other criminals use "draft" e-mails and shared e-mail addresses to communicate while covering their tracks. I did not know about that. But interestingly enough, the sign that I saw at the library does not cover that activity. It mentioned "records of books and other materials that you borrow or information that you view on computers at this library." It says nothing about "material that you write and save." If the sign said, "This is a public terminal, and if you write or send e-mail, others may be able to read what you have written," I don't think I would have the same concern. (That's assuming that a copy of an e-mail that I write and save into an account as a "draft" exists somewhere on the computer, in a cache somewhere, but if it does not, I'm not sure how it relates to this subject at all.) Anyone interested in learning about prisons from a sociological standpoint can get a brief tour; preferable to committing a crime and getting a long tour. Likewise, anyone interested in learning more about any form of child abuse can get a policeman or prosecutor to come to a committee meeting or Roundtable; preferable to possessing the material. I wasn't talking about committing a crime, and the only "material" I was talking about was a perfectly legal book that discusses a sensitive and controversial topic. The sign at the library mentioned records of books and materials that I borrow. My concern was, how far could this be taken? Before anyone goes off the deep end, please remember that the authorities don't have the resources to go to every public library computer and "data mine" -- it's only going to happen on a lead of some sort. First of all, I choose to ignore the condescending tone implied in "Before anyone goes off the deep end." Second of all, I seem to remember that in the 60's the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover somehow had enough "resources" to collect huge dossiers on many innocent people and to infiltrate many groups whose only "crime" was that they vocally disagreed with the government's (or sometimes just Hoover's) positions on civil rights or the War in Vietnam. I shudder to think how all of that would have gone if the communications and surveillance technology of today had existed back then. Third of all, I know that in saying "a lead of some sort" you were not aiming for legal precision, but it still ties into my point. I have a concern that that the "degree" of lead required to investigate further will just be of "some sort" -- as opposed to the sort that actually indicates that some has been committed or is being planned by a particular individual.

Adrian says: Whom do you think is being unjustly "looked into" here? I don't have any idea. That's part of my concern. It could be anybody, and it could be nobody, and the answer could be different next week than it is this week. If you have no problem publicly carrying a book to the library counter and checking it out, why is it so bloody embarassing to have it come up on a screen? You do have a point there, but I think there is a difference. I am pretty sure the typical high school or college kid working the circulation desk does not care what I am checking out, and has no interest in telling anyone. I cannot say the same for unknown, unseen, unheard "agents." I have no idea how far, and to who, their interest may extend. If that's the biggest governmental bogey man you can come up with, then I must say that the anonymous men in black suits aren't doing their job very well. Of course, I reject the term "bogey man" because of its implication that I have nothing to be concerned about. And no, it isn't the biggest concern I have in the general field of government intrusions on individual rights. It is just the one that occurred to me when I read the sign about it, while I happened to be logging into the Internet, which prompted me to write about it.

After a few years' absence, I have recently resumed visiting my local public library, not just to bring my children, but to use it myself. So, what I am about to write about has probably been the case for well over a year, but I never saw it until a week or 2 ago. Right now I am sitting at one of the public Internet access terminals in the library, and using some of my free 60 minutes to do this, instead of what I intended when I sat down. Because, I have noticed that over each of the terminals is a sign that says: "FOR YOUR INFORMATION Although the ___ Library System makes every effort to protect your privacy, under the revised standards of the federal USA PATRIOT ACT (Public Law 107-56) records of books and other materials that you borrow or information that you view on computers at this library may be obained by federal agrents who show proper legal authorization. The federal law prohibits library employees from informing you if federal agents have obtained library records about you." I assume other public libraries have this or something similar. I was just wondering, does this bother anybody? I am sure that there are some standards for "federal agents" to otbain "proper legal authorization" before getting the records of what I read, or the log from the software that is probably recording every keystroke that I am making right now -- but you wouldn't know that from the little sign. Nor would you know, and nor do I know, what those standards happen to be. It certainly gives me no assurance that the "federal agents" need to have any specific information that I am planning to commit a crime, before snooping into what I read or what I look at, at the library. Nor does it give me any assurance as to where this information might go, and how it might be used, once "proper legal authorization" has been obtained. And just contemplate the possible implications of that. What if I were interested in reading about psychology, and I were browsing through the stacks and found a book about pedophilia. Maybe I want to learn more about this condition and the terrible acts of those who have it. Do I check it out? Or do I consider what it "looks like"? And what it looks like could be different things. On one hand I am a library visitor who has checked out a book about a psychological condition and crime. On the other hand I am an elected member of my local school board and a registered leader in a Boy Scout troop, checking about a book about people having sex with children. How would it "look"? Do we really have all the "freedom" that we should have anymore? And if not, if we have sacrificed some of our freedom in hopes of being "safer", do we really realize what we have given up? Remember what Benjamin Franklin said about those who give up their liberty for some temporary security. Or is that "pre-9/11 thinking"? Have we reached the era where whatever the government says it needs to do to protect us is ok? Perhaps I am making too much about a sign at a library, but I think there is something here that we need to be concerned about.

The ACLU targeted the Boy Scouts and then found plaintiffs who would back them up. Why don't they do the same to other "religious" groups. First of all, the ACLU sues on a lot of issues besides the Boy Scouts, including government entanglement with religious groups and activities. Second of all, the ACLU is allowed to sue (or find other people to sue) whoever they choose to, and it doesn't change whether the activity they are trying to stop is legal or illegal. The courts decide that. Third of all, you have the same right to sue, or to find other people to sue, that the ACLU has. There are groups on the other side of the political spectrum who do just that. Is this a great country, or what?

This is slightly off topic because it is not about the Board of Review, but is about the "Scout Spirit" requirement as well as the Scoutmaster's Conference. I recently found out that my son's Scoutmaster will not pass a boy on Scout Spirit for any rank unless the boy shows up for his Scoutmaster's Conference in full uniform and can recite the Oath, Law, Scout Slogan and Scout Motto from memory. Additionally, in this troop no Assistant Scoutmaster or any other leader (boy or adult) will sign off on Scout Spirit, it is considered the exclusive province of the SM at the SM Conference. At the conference, after the boy recites these things, the SM discusses with him how he lives the Oath, Law etc in his everyday life, and the other things that are discussed at the conference. But if you can't recite the Scout Oath, you have to come back. Is this adding to the requirements? A boy should do, and be able to do, all these things anyway. But is the SM entitled to withhold the Scout Spirit requirement if he doesn't? Incidentally, here is how this has come up recently... first, a boy who was 10 days short of his 18th birthday presented himself for his SM conference for Eagle without a neckerchief or Scout pants, which the SM was probably going to overlook. But then the boy blanked on the Scout Oath. Now, this boy has been a Scout since crossing over from Webelos, has probably recited the Scout Oath from memory hundreds of times, but probably with the stress of having just gotten his project done under the wire, and with the SM sitting there saying, "Scout Oath," at that moment he just couldn't do it. (He did do it before the deadline.) second, and this is AFTER the SM reminded everybody about what is expected at the conferences, a kid showed up for his Star SM conference with no neckerchief. Once again, here is a boy who is in full uniform every week. (He scrounged one up from the troop room, but you have to wonder what would make him NOT do so BEFORE the conference... third, and I suppose this is just by way of bragging, my just-barely 12-year-old son apparently DOES get it, because he had his Tenderfoot SM Conference and BOR the same night and was handed the badge at closing, so he must have done something right, and needs about 3 more things for Second Class... But as always, I digress...

OGE says: personally I try to stay away from the court system, Good move, I only get involved in the court system because it puts food on the table. but, just what does "Plaintiffs with standing" mean? In order to file a lawsuit, you have to have some involvment with the subject matter of the lawsuit (to say it non-lawyerly-like.) Having the required level of involvement in a case in order to be able to file a lawsuit, is called having "standing to sue," or just "standing." Most of the time it isn't an issue. If someone hits you with their car or owes you money and isn't paying, you obviously have standing to sue them. It's more complicated when you are challenging an action by the government that is not specifically directed at you. I believe the legal buzz-word is that you have to be "aggrieved" by the action in order to sue. So, if San Diego gives a no-rent lease to the Boy Scouts, and you want to challenge that action in court, and you happen to be a heterosexual who believes in God, the court might say that you have no standing. It doesn't hurt you that the government made a deal with a group that excludes gays and atheists, at least not directly. That is why a group like the ACLU would look for a San Diego resident who is gay or an atheist and who is therefore paying taxes to a government that is using public property to give a no-rent lease to a group that excludes him from membership. That is probably enough to have "standing." I hope that helps. There is probably a better way to explain this, but it's late on a Friday afternoon and I'm tired. NJ, I think I understand your position, but I also think it may not be bad to fight back a little as well Fighting back in defense of a policy that makes sense, I have no problem with. If a local government were to decide that it wasn't going to rent land to a group that wears uniforms because that promotes militarism, I would probably say, go ahead, file the lawsuit because it's for a good cause. But when the BSA is fighting to be able to get special favors from the government, when it is excluding people who I don't think should be excluded, it becomes a bit difficult to watch.

Well, OGE, I was only 10 then. I didn't yet "get" a lot of what was going on at the time. I probably wasn't even watching that Olympics.

I think it's a sad commentary on the current state of the BSA that there is a new BSA web site trumpeting its litigation activity, and that the new site is promoted on the main BSA web page right there with Boy's Life Magazine, Florida Sea Base and Good Turn for America. Litigation is what I do for a living, but there's something wrong when it is a featured activity of a youth organization. And the BSA can no longer claim, as it once did, that it is in court only because it is being sued by "activists." Both of the lawsuits in the "What's New" section are ones where the BSA is the plaintiff. Who is the "activist" now? I also find it interesting that the BSA's counsel is Hughes Hubbard and Reed, one of the most prestigious (and therefore expensive) law firms in the country. I doubt they are donating their time. The lawsuit in the San Diego case (on the site in pdf form) has the names of 3 Hughes-Hubbard lawyers in 3 different offices on it. Ka-ching! Now, I certainly don't begrudge another lawyer making a living, and that firm is worth almost every penny. But it's a lot of pennies, probably 30,000 or 40,000 pennies (3 or 4 hundred $) per hour, per lawyer. So when your pack or troop writes its recharter check this year, that's where some of it is going. And by the way, not that this means the BSA is necessarily wrong, but the track record of Hughes Hubbard in the Connecticut case is zero for 2, and the Supreme Court grants petitions for certiorari very rarely, so all the money spent on that particular case has produced no benefit for Scouting so far. Ultimately I don't see any of this benefiting the youth who the BSA is supposed to serve.

I have to admit that when I think of controversial spontaneous sports moments, the main one that sticks in my mind had nothing to do with a flag... you remember, the American women's soccer player after she scored the winning goal in the championship game...

My former pack's "software" consists of one of the fathers who has been doing it for at least the past six years, and a piece of paper. He picks out the cars to race in each heat, keeps all the records, does it very fast and from what anyone can tell, accurately. I have a suspicion that the man has used a "racing form" more than once in his life. I decided to "visit" the Pinewood Derby this past weekend, with my son whose patrol are mostly graduates of this pack, and who served as "junior race officials." (Most of the time my son had the "tough" job of pushing the reset button on the "electronic judge" after each heat, and for this he got free pizza and soda, you can't beat that. His presence caused some shock for some of the mothers, who when they last saw him a year ago were looking down at him, and are now looking either across or slightly up.) Our race coordinator uses TRIPLE elimination. The races are by "grade level" and the pack seems to have about 60 boys now, so it did take awhile. Don't ask me why it is triple elimination, that is just the way it was before I was there, and that is they way it is now that I'm gone. I was the overall event coordinator for the Pinewood Derby for two years and never heard anyone complain about it.

I have seen film clips of the end of that hockey game with the player with the flag draped around his shoulders, but I never knew he had been criticized for it. If that is the case, I think the criticism is ridiculous. Even if Kid Rock's "premeditated" wearing and careless removal of a flag-poncho is considered wrong, the hockey thing is not in the same category. Regardless of whether the player had anywhere to put the flag or not, he had just "led" a team representing the United States to a "miracle" win, and for a moment he had a flag draped around his shoulders. Does anybody seriously have a problem with that? He wasn't really "wearing" the flag, he was displaying it in a jubilant and celebretory manner, and he certainly wasn't showing any disrespect for it.

Very well said, Packsaddle.

Ford would probably make a good speaker. Especially given that he is an Eagle Scout, and also that he does not have a strong "ideological identification" that would interfere with whatever he might say. Unfortunately, I doubt he is on the "lecture circuit" much these days, given that he is 90 years old. I have seen him on tv a few times in the last year or two and he seems to be "holding up" pretty well, and I think he could still make a decent speech, but he's pretty frail and I doubt he has a very full schedule. I liked Ford because even though I disagreed with him on a number of issues, he was flexible and pragmatic, and he was not "nasty" as so much of politics is today.

Oh, ye demon who prevents me from editing my posts, be gone... I said: ...who do like to equate liberalism with conservatism because it serves their political purposes. I suppose that was sort of a Freudian typo, since I was talking about some conservatives, but obviously what I meant was: ...who do like to equate liberalism with socialism because it serves their political purposes.

Acco says: Has our society become so polarized that statements like: "I am not a liberal. I support capitalism as a much more fair and freedom-bearing system." are made? Since when did "liberal thought" preclude a belief in capitalism? What Acco said. (I would say "ditto" but that has become appropriated by a certain talk-show host who I don't wish to be associated with.) I must have gotten so accustomed to liberal-bashing on this forum that this didn't even register with me when I first read it, but thanks for pointing it out, Acco. Unfortunately I think the answer to your first question (rhetorical though it may be) is yes. That has to come with an asterisk in this case, as the writer of that statement is Canadian, and these labels do have somewhat different meanings in different countries. I do not know whether "liberal" in Canada has a legitimate "socialistic" connotation or not. I do know that it does not in this country (meaning the one I am sitting in), though there seem to be a lot of conservative commentators, and a few members of this forum, who do like to equate liberalism with conservatism because it serves their political purposes.

Adrian says: It is one thing to respect an individual's human dignity or the virtues which they possess. It is another to "respect" an false belief or wrong action. I don't think the latter is possible. I respect many people with whom I disagree, but I cannot respect ideas or choices which I perceive to be wrong. The Scout Handbook says: A Scout is Reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others. (Emphasis added. Actually I don't have a Handbook with me, and lifted the text itself from usscouts.org but then verified it at http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-503a.html, so I assume that this is taken verbatim from the Handbook. It certainly sounds familiar.) Now, Adrian, as an individual you of course are not necessarily required to agree with the official explanation of the Scout Law as published in the Scout Handbook. However, as others have pointed out in other contexts, as a Scouter you do have an obligation to "role model" this behavior for the Scouts. And unlike some other "policies" that may or may not be implied by the Scout Oath and Law, this is right there in the handbook. That being the case, it does not appear that you agree with the BSA on this important point. The BSA says a Scout "respects the beliefs of others." There is obviously an implication there that the beliefs in question are not shared by the Scout, otherwise there would be no need to say this at all. In other words, the Scout does not regard those beliefs as being correct, or to put it another way, he thinks they are incorrect, or to use your word, "wrong." He disagrees with them. And yet, he is obliged to "respect" them. (I am not talking here about things like treatment of gays or whether God exists. I am talking about basic religious beliefs, such as would divide Christians from Jews, or Christians who believe in the Trinity from those that don't, or Jews who think God requires us to abstain from pork or lobster, or to have our heads covered while praying, or to have only male rabbis, from those who don't.) And yet, Adrian, you don't. You "cannot respect ideas or choices which I perceive to be wrong." (In the interests of full disclosure, this subject has been discussed in several threads in this topic in the past, usually with Rooster taking the same position you are taking. Obviously the issue is whether the BSA is using the same definition of "respect" that you are. But the language seems pretty plain to me.)

The action by United Way in your area is not unique, but neither is it a "national action." Each local United Way chapter (or whatever they call them) is independent, has its own criteria and policies for funding and interprets and administers those criteria for itself. I just did an Internet search and found an article that said about 50 UW's had eliminated funding (other than to pass through dedicated contributions) for BSA programs. That article was from April 2002 (which to my astonishment, is now almost 2 years ago), so the number has probably grown. What percentage of the total chapters that is, I don't know, but 50 chapters obviously is signficant. Different companies have taken different approaches as well. As for sales of camps, I think it would be safe to say that virtually every sale of a camp is due to financial reasons either directly or indirectly, but it does not necessarily mean a council is in "financial trouble." In turn, a council could be in "financial trouble" for reasons having little or nothing to do with cutbacks in support. Consolidations of councils, often resulting from reductions in membership in a given area over many years, is a likely cause of camp sales. I have no statistics, but I do know that in 1999-2000 four councils in New Jersey merged into the Northern New Jersey council, and this was the culmination of a series of mergers over the years. Thirty years ago, there were probably more than 10 councils in what is now Northern New Jersey Council. (I started Scouting in a council consisting of the City of Newark and 2 smaller towns, and my father started in the Bayonne Council, consisting of one not-very-large city. By the end of the 90's these had been subsumed into the Essex County and Hudson County councils respectively, and finally these councils and two other county-wide councils became the one big council.) The result was that after the merger, one council had something like 11 camps (to my understanding, about 7 or 8 regular summer camps in New Jersey and the rest as high-adventure bases in far-northern New York state.) There is no way this council could support so many camps, and I know that at least one has been sold (over a certain amount of protest, but it was sold to a county-government-supported program that rents it out to various groups including the Boy Scouts, and except for the BSA logo being replaced by the Park Commission logo, and probably an increase in use-fees, it still looks very much like a Boy Scout camp.) Was this camp sold for "financial reasons"? Ultimately, sure, but the immediate cause was the reduction in BSA membership in that area, making it untenable to maintain 4 (or 10) councils, and for the same reasons, they did not need so many camps. So I would just caution you to be careful of "cause and effect" in your research.

ScouterPaul, Oliver North's conviction was reversed on appeal. (Vacated, nullified, wiped off the books.) As I recall the prosecutor decided it would be too difficult to re-prosecute him based on the conditions that the Court of Appeals imposed. That was the "technicality" I was talking about. The reversal had nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. The Congressional committee that was formed to investigate this had done something that ultimately proved to be not a good idea, and subsequent Congressional investigative committees have learned from their mistake. In order to get North to testify and not "take the Fifth," Congress granted him immunity from prosecution based on what he testified to (which is called "use immunity" as opposed to "transactional immunity" which prevents any prosecution at all, which Congress does not have the power to give.) The "use immunity" given to North basically prevented prosecutors NOT ONLY from using his actual words against him, but also from using what he said as leads to other information that could be used to prosecute him. After he was convicted, the Court of Appeals decided that the government had indeed taken what North said and used it to figure out who to ask questions, what to ask them, what kind of documents to look for, and all other kinds of investigative techniques, which violated his use immunity. He could have been prosecuted again, but that would have meant untangling the different sources of information and separating what they knew as a derivative of his testimony, and what they discovered independently. This is not an easy thing to do, because once you "know" something, if you ask a question, did you ask it because of what you knew, or would you have thought of it anyway. This is really impossible to do with any certainty after the fact.

Two speakers I have heard at college graduations that gave talks that would be appropriate for a scouting functions were Joe Paterno and Peter Uberoth. Polital figures such as Bob Dole or Jimmy Carter I think could give appropriate talks without being controverial. I'd love to hear a talk from Tom Brady. An athlete I've always respected that I think would be a good choice I would be Tom Seaver. Those all sound reasonable, though based on what I have heard about Tom Seaver, he might not qualify if "Humble" were the 13th point of the Scout Law. (One of the jokes about him is, Tom Seaver is the best player ever to play for the Mets in any position, and if you're not sure about that, just ask him and he'll tell you.)

The amount of attention that a stupid halftime show is getting is truly unbelieveable. (And I mean "stupid" both in the sense of "trivial" and in the sense of "stupid.")

Well dan, you can't always account for "someone." Someone could say anything. But I think you could identify people who would not raise legitimate questions. As I said in the other thread, an actual elected official or other public official, even though they are of one party or the other, would be an appropriate choice if they keep their remarks to "general statesmanship" and how the BSA is great because it encourages citizenship and self-reliance, or similar themes. Someone who is a hero for actions outside the political realm, such as an astronaut for example, could not draw any plausible objection (unless they suddenly decide to start spouting partisan rhetoric, of course.) (Of course there are also heroic firefighters, police officers etc. but I think this discussion is about "nationally known" figures and not people who are notable mainly on a local scale.) Also a sports figure who is known for success on the field or wherever, as opposed to one whose fame is due in part to his many court appearances (and I don't mean basketball or tennis courts.) Those are just a few ideas, not a comprehensive list.