However, this isn’t “give me money”.

Each part of this fundraiser is about contributors getting something in return. (Indeed, only in the first part are they contributors; in the second two parts they are actually customers.) You are, of course, perfectly free to make a contribution without claiming anything in return, but that is neither the premise or nor the expectation.

• Convention Photo Prints

  This is the primary component of this year’s fundraiser, and it functions much like it did last year. For each of various donation levels starting at $30, contributors can receive a print of my Comic-Con photography. While I sell prints of other photos, I do not sell convention photography. My annual SDCC fundraiser is the only way to get ahold of such prints, and the more you donate the more you get in return. Click through for all the details and specifics.

  If by June 7 the overall fundraiser does not result in enough resources to make the trip feasible, all contributions to the above will be refunded in full. (This does not apply to the two parts below.)

  Note: The above process only works for U.S. contributors. If you are outside the U.S. you can donate via PayPal instead.

• Pop Culture T-Shirts

  I have three t-shirts for sale via MySoti: one for fans of the late, lamented television series Terriers, one for fans of Doctor Who (or, more specifically, of late-night host Craig Ferguson’s musical description of it), and one who anyone who appreciates an obscure in-joke about WHEDONesque from the days of the “Help Nathan Buy Firefly” debacle. T-shirts start at $20 each, of which I get about $2.

• Photo Prints of Marian Call

  For a limited time only, and with permission, I am selling prints of my photos of singer-songwriter Marian Call. There are four featured photos, prints of which can be ordered directly through my sales site. 8×12 prints are $25 plus shipping, with other print sizes priced accordingly.

  In addition, through a separate item on that site you can place a special order for a print of any of the other photos of Call that I have in my Flickr photostream. Special orders are limited to 8×12 prints priced at $30 (which includes shipping) and will take longer to ship as they are handled outside the sale site’s fulfillment process.

Alternatively, if you happen to be a certain pop culture wizard who shall remain nameless and you finally think a web and social media presence would be good, you could just hire me to do that and I’d be set for San Diego. Just saying.

Winding down is my STS-134 NASA Tweetup Trip Fund, which would be the unexpected opportunity.

Now that I’ve been bumped up from the waiting list to the actual list of attendees, I need to pay for the trip to Florida to experience the launch of the shuttle Endeavor in April.

When I was five years old (and in no small part due to the film 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY), when everyone else was answering “policeman” or “fireman” or “doctor” to the question of what they wanted to be when they grew up, my first real answer was that I wanted to be an “outer space moving van driver”, helping (and this part was very specific) families to move into orbiting space stations.

To get a sense of what a unique opportunity this is, see this map produced by a former tweetup attendee to see just how close we will be compared to the closest public access.

Please help me satisfy part of my inner five-year-old’s longing by contributing to this trip fund! (Any funds collected in excess of those needed to cover trip expenses will be donated to Mercy Corps, earmarked for Japan earthquake relief and recovery.)

All photos posted by me during this experience will be released under a Creative Commons license.

Things are in decent shape on this one, it still a little tight. Even if no further contribution to this fund are made, the funds that have been raised so far have at least managed to make the trip possible at all. You will be able to follow my experience of the final launch of the space shuttle Endeavour as seen from the press site at Kennedy Space Center on Outer Space Moving Van Driver, my trip blog.

Just getting started is my SDCC 2011 Trip Fund, a reprise of a similar bit of fundraising I did last year.

DISCLAIMER: Fundraising won’t cover all my trip costs and in no way is expected to. But I need to know if it would generate enough resources to put Comic-Con (mainly the hotel bill, the single largest expense) within striking distance for me this year. If it’s clear by June 8 that the trip is not feasible, ALL DONATIONS WILL BE FULLY REFUNDED.

Every year at San Diego Comic-Con, my primary activity is photography. (See my SDCC collection for examples, or my ECCC collection and my PaleyFest collection for similar work.) Since I don’t sell prints of my convention photographs, contributing to my trip fund is the only way to obtain one.

A donation of $30 or more entitles you to a photo print of your choosing from this year’s SDCC. Each additional $20 gets you an additional photo. ($50 gets you two prints, $70 gets you three, etc.) The more you contribute, the more you get.

In addition, anyone contributing at least $100 total is entitled to specify that one of their prints come from LAST YEAR’S photos instead. So If there’s something you wanted last year but didn’t get it, here’s your chance.

Last year, supporter contributions were a major part of my SDCC trip, something for which I am extremely grateful. It enabled me to focus on photography, not funds, and share my convention experience with others through my photos. If you choose to contribute this year, please know that you have my thanks and great appreciation for making this possible again. (And I look forward to seeing what photos you choose!)

As the fundraising pitch says, contributing to this fund is the only way I make available prints of photos I take at Comic-Con. This year I’ve added the extra incentive of allowing contributors of at least $100 to select as one of their prints a photo from last year’s batch.

It’s only through contributions that my trip to see the launch of Endeavour will be possible at all. And it’s only through contributions in exchange for photo prints unavailable in any other way that a trip to San Diego Comic-Con will be made possible.

In each circumstance, I am profoundly grateful for the support people have given in the past and, I hope, are interested in giving in the future. But if you can’t give to either fundraiser, no worries! You can still follow along with my shuttle launch trip blog and, as always, enjoy my Comic-Con photos (if I get to go) on my Flickr account.

Have questions about either fundraiser? Just click my name at the top of this post to send me email, or find me on Twitter.

Last year was made possible not only of by that fundraiser (in which people who look forward to my convention photography helped pay my way, and if they donated above a certain amount could claim a print of any Comic-Con photo I took that year) but by the fact that for the six months prior to the event last year, I was actually employed.

That’s not been true in any consistent way since. And a fundraiser alone would never cover all of the costs imposed by going to Comic-Con. The hotel alone is around $1200.

All of that said, here’s the current plan. Next week, I submit materials to get a press badge as a freelance photographer. No guarantee, and I have some other options if that falls through. I’m doing this because I don’t want something to happen that allows me to go and end up not having a pass.

But the big looming deadline for something to change is May 10. Hotel reservations not cancelled by May 10 incur a $100 cancellation fee, taken from the one-night deposit required when booking the room. The entire deposit is forfeited if you hold out until June 9 before cancelling.

Basically, a change in fortunes is needed by May 10, or I will have to cancel my hotel room and forego attending Comic-Con this year. In other words, if I’m not employed by May 10, there’s no Comic-Con. The formula for going remains “employment plus fundraiser”.

The only other way to avoid that May 10 deadline would be to have the money to reimburse the person who fronted my hotel deposit, so that they are not out of that money even if I blow off the hotel cancellation deadlines. I don’t see how that’s possible, so I have to operate on the assumption that May 10 is my drop-dead date.

It’s been argued that I should run a fundraiser anyway. But the two flaws in that are these: (1) I’m in the middle of a fundraiser to be able to take advantage of the unique opportunity presented by having been chosen to participante in the official NASA Tweetup for the final launch of the space shuttle Endeavour; and (2) the fundraiser is based upon producing photographs at Comic-Con, so I can’t raise money for the trip if the trip costs would never be covered by fundraising money alone.

(Or, technically, I could but only with the promise to refund contributions should the trip not be possible. I’m looking into the technical feasibility of this in terms of the fees involved.)

If you have any bright ideas — about funding a Comic-Con trip entirely, or just about covering that hotel deposit so I can ignore the deadline and give myself more time — while I continue my efforts to convince someone to give me a damned job, click my name atop this post to send me email.

I’ve already looked back at that vote, and showed how some supporters of rejoining revise the history of the original debate to suit themselves. Now, let’s take a look at how some other supporters are trying to have it both ways when making their case.

Anna Griffin joins Oregon’s interim U.S. attorney and the FBI’s special agent in charge here in Portland in making one central argument.

Holton and Balizan’s argument for putting Portland cops back on the team is much simpler: This is not your grandfather’s FBI. Nor J. Edgar Hoover’s. Nor George W. Bush’s.

…

How much has really changed in the intervening five years? There’s a Democrat in the White House today and Democrat appointees running the U.S. Justice Department. A new mayor has appointed his own new police chief.

What’s curious about this is that Griffin, in the same piece, argues that here in Portland debates such as these are only “about our communal mistrust of authority, past misdeeds by local and national cops, and the politics of the moment”. This is curious because by taking the “we have different leadership” tack, in fact it’s Dwight Holton, Arthur Balizan, and Anna Griffin saying “the politics of the moment” should be the deciding factor.

Opponents of Portland’s standing participation in the JTTF (it’s still allowed to cooperate on a case-by-case, as-needed basis) make the opposite, and entirely consistent argument: that we are meant to be a nation, and by extension a city, of laws instead of one of men.

Griffin makes the decision to glibly dismiss these concerns.

They did not trust federal agents to balance the need to protect us from terrorists with the need to guard our civil rights. They also did not trust their own employees, Portland officers, to obey state statute or balk if asked to violate it in the course of a federal investigation.

As to the first, the civil rights at issue are covered by state, not federal law, and as such those agents have neither the responsibility, the obligation, nor in fact the authority to monitor the compliance of state and local law enforcement with Oregon law. As to the second, it’s naive to suggest that government functions solely on trust absent any sort of oversight. Griffin’s statements are not only more revisionist history regarding the original JTTF debate, they’re woefully inadequate as a theory of civic governance.

It’s as true today as it was in 2005 that state and city police in Oregon are subject to certain state laws that Federal officials don’t have to consider, and under the JTTF’s rules Portland’s police commissioner would not be allowed to ensure compliance with those laws on the part of the officers he oversees.

That’s a legal reality that exists regardless of whether J. Edgar Hoover or Robert Mueller runs the FBI, regardless of whether George W. Bush or Barack Obama is in the White House.

There are arguments to be made in favor of Portland rejoining the JTTF, even if I find none of them persuasive, but what they cannot be allowed to do is distort the debate the city had in 2005.

Nor can they have it both ways. If they truly believe (rather than just find it rhetorically convenient to claim) that such decisions are too often made in Portland based on the politics of the moment, they need to stop arguing that who’s in charge — the height of “the politics of the moment” — is what matters.

Be sure, when tweeting your nomination, to include some sort of reason (any reason will do), otherwise the nomination will be discounted.

In the end, of course, the entire category will be discounted, but perhaps in the meantime someone will buy themselves some photo prints, or decide to completely throw away their hard-earned money by buying me an iPad and some ridiculously expensive camera gear.

Don’t let any false b!Xes sweep in and steal this entirely unofficial, completely pointless, eventually discarded, user-created, shamelessly self-promotional Shorty Awards category. Nominate me today!

[I]n weird Portland, our leadership can decide that we should be the only jurisdiction in the entire country to withdraw from the Joint Terrorism Task Force and be safer as a result.

At least that’s until a young Somali man selected Portland for his alleged plot to kill hundreds of innocent men, women and children because, in part, our tolerance and our weirdness would have us convinced it could never happen here.

…

[Commissioner] Leonard has also said that the outcome of the alleged bombing plot would have been no different were we in or out of the JTTF. I’m glad he’s convinced of that; I’m sure not.

I’m going to take that last part first, because Lister’s argument appears to be this: we need to rejoin the JTTF because law enforcement successfully thwarted a terrorist plot without us being in the JTTF.

Ignoring the lingering question of entrapment, if this case shows us anything it’s that Portland does not need to be in the JTTF in order for these sorts of plots to be foiled — precisely the opposite of the argument Lister tries to advance.

But moving on to the more important issue, Lister’s entire conception, of course, is nonsense.

After the city withdrew from the JTTF (again, here’s all my coverage), Portland police officers were still permitted to cooperate with Federal authorities on a case-by-case basis, precisely because the city very much understood that it could happen here. The withdrawal simply meant that the city’s police officers weren’t allowed to have standing, ongoing security clearances above those granted to their civilian bosses.

Lister goes on to rewrite the history of why Portland withdrew from the JTTF in the first place, suggesting that it was never more than Portland’s hatred of President George W. Bush.

That’s a convenient line of “reasoning” for the right wing to use, but it’s hogwash. As was repeatedly communicated both by the testifying public and by the commissioners themselves, the premise always was that we are meant to be a nation, and by extension a city, of laws not one of men. We’re not meant simply to trust that there are no abuses, we’re supposed to have legal safeguards in place to ensure that there are no abuses.

To refresh Listers’ memory, at stake during the JTTF debates of 2005 (and before) were two provisions of state law, specifically of ORS Chapter 181. ORS 181.575 designates specific information not to be collected or maintained by law enforcement agencies, while 181.850 places restrictions on state and local law enforcement from enforcing Federal immigration laws.

Even setting aside the creed of local, civilian control over our own police officers, the fact that the FBI doesn’t monitor its state or city law enforcement partners for compliance with Oregon law remains unchanged whether the President is George W. Bush or Barack Obama.

It’s true, as Lister writes, that Mayor Sam Adams’ plan the revisit the issue states that “the nation has elected a new president and changes in related federal policies have occurred” since the city withdrew from the JTTF. But, contrary to Lister’s assertion, that doesn’t mean our withdrawal from the JTTF was a personality conflict with George Bush.

It’s perfectly sensible when there is new political leadership — in fact, it’s arguably the right thing to do — to examine whether or not any policy changes have occurred which, for example, would allow our local, civilian officials to obtain the relevant security clearances, which in turn would allow the city to authorize the police officers which they oversee to return to the JTTF.

Contrary to Lister’s demagoguery on the issue, JTTF withdrawal was never about personality or some sort of petulant political snit fit against George Bush. It was about ensuring the compliance of the city’s police officers with state laws with which the FBI does not concern itself. It was about maintaining the city’s local, civilian control over those officers. At the same time, the withdrawal still allowed for case-by-case close cooperation with Federal law enforcement, precisely because the city continued to understand that, indeed, something could happen here.

None of that changes just because Dave Lister, Dan Saltzman, or anyone else hopes they can dupe everyone else into forgetting what really happened during the withdrawal debates of 2005.

Lister says he wants everyone to “set politics aside and do the right thing”. But it’s politics to revise the history of the JTTF debate, and it’s politics to ignore the central issues of that debate.

The city already did the right thing in 2005 in demanding that our local officials be able to ensure the compliance of local law enforcement with state law. If there are no new federal policies in place today which would allow that to happen within the context of participating in the JTTF, it’s nothing but politics to demand that we return to it.

Today is a very sad day. The Commandant of the United States Marine Corps says when your life hangs on the line, you don’t want anything distracting it. Mistakes or inattention or distraction cost Marines lives. I don’t want to permit that opportunity to happen and I’ll tell you why. You go up to Bethesda Naval Hospital. Marines are up there with no legs. None. You’ve got Marines at Walter Reed with no limbs.

The reference is to the recent remarks of General James F. Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, who has publicly opposed repeal.

“Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines lives,” he said on Tuesday, explaining how he came to his decision. “That’s the currency of this fight.

“I don’t want to lose any Marines to the distraction. I don’t want to have any Marines that I’m visiting at Bethesda [National Naval Medical Center, in Maryland] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction.”

…

[W]ith so many Marines engaged in Afghanistan, he thought about what could happen to small units like those in Sangin, where fighting is the heaviest by many accounts. When a firefight breaks out, he said, lives depend on “intuitive behavior” free from distraction.

“I don’t want to permit that opportunity [for distraction] to happen,” he said.

It’s important to parse what General Amos and Senator McCain are saying, because quite clearly they themselves haven’t.

Amos and McCain, when talking about “distractions” and “intuitive behavior”, in essence are saying that the soldiers of the United States military are too stupid, immature, or outright homophobic to do their jobs properly if there are gays in their midst.

Their position, when parsed, is that if there are known gays around, we can’t trust what politicians and military leaders keep telling us is the best-trained fighting force in the history of the world to be intelligent and focused enough to do what we’ve spent billions of dollars training them to do when the bullets fly and the bombs fall.

James Amos, the head of the United States Marine Corps, and John McCain, a leading Senator and himself a veteran, argue that the soldiers for whom they claim to speak are simply too weak, or at least too weak-minded, and that the nation’s policies need to respect this failing.

Fortunately for the rest of us, today sixty-five of McCain’s fellow Senators disagreed with his and Amos’ assessment that U.S. soliders are too stupid, immature, or outright homophobic to live in the 21st century.

From the office of Mayor Sam Adams there now is a draft work plan to reexamine the question of JTTF membership, so I thought I’d present here some portions of my own coverage of the city’s decision to withdraw in April, 2005. Specifically, the comments of each member of City Council upon casting their vote.

In the end, it came down to the much-postponed vote itself, and the closing comments on the issue by each member of City Council.

“This is a very serious issue, and one that I’ve spent a lot of time researching,” said Commissioner Sam Adams, adding that he was convinced “that we can prevent terrorism” under the terms of the resolution. “And I think that we will and we can while protecting the basic rights of all people.” He reiterated the litany of controversial provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act which he listed during the March hearing.

Saying that his view of his responsibility as an elected official is to not ignore such concerns, Adams said that “the additional very common sense accountability required by the Mayor and by the Commissioner I think is very reasonable”.

Commissioner Randy Leonard placed his support for the resolution in the context of a demand for accountability in City government, which he said he’s pressed consistently since first running for his office. “I think its unreasonable,” he said, “to ask the Commissioner-in-Charge not to have full access and accountability of all the employees under that Commissioner’s responsibility.”

He called the proper civilian oversight of law enforcement officials a “time tested principles of governance” and a “cornerstone of our form of government” — and one for which men and women have fought and died.

Leonard also reminded people that it was he who cast a vote against a resolution opposing the war in Iraq, largely on the basis of believing the government’s stated rationales for that war. “As it turned out,” he said, “my trust in what I was told was betrayed.” As a result, he said he had adopted another guiding principle: “Trust, but verify.”

And then came the moment for which some of us were waiting so eagerly: Saltzman’s public defense of his solitary vote against the resolution.

“I respect very much the work of the Mayor, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorney over the last three weeks,” he said, “and I am disappointed that those talks did not succeed.” He said that his ideal outcome would have been for the talks to continue (convenient, since endless talks would simply mean continued participation without oversight), and therefore he would not support the resolution.

“With all due respect to the Mayor and my colleagues on the City Council,” Saltzman said, “I think the resolution is a step backwards.” He argued that restricting Portland’s participation to “imminent” threats “does not equal prevention”.

(Again, Saltzman conveniently leaves out facts which are inconvenient to his position. In this case, the fact that Portland’s cooperation is not limited only to “imminent” threats, but can also move forward on a “case-by-case” basis. It’s one thing when ones newspaper of record omits critical facts in order to distort public impression of an issue, but it’s really rather ugly when an elected official does it as well.)

He then re-raised his argument from last month, which is all of the bad publicity this will bring as it puts Portland in the national spotlight.

“Terrorism is real,” Saltzman said, insinuating by even uttering the sentence that proponents of proper local oversight over Portland officers have somehow forgotten this fact. “We live in a place that is a haven for hate crimes,” he added. “We ought to recognize that.”

Saltzman reminded everyone that it was he who sponsored the Council resolution expressing concerns over provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. But: “We can’t juxtapose our concerns over the PATRIOT Act on this debate here and now.”

…

In response to the several people (including, we suspect, ourselves) who chastised him for trying, in his op-ed piece, to call upon 9/11 for his own purposes, he said this: “I wont pretend to speak for all New Yorkers”. He then, nonetheless, said: “We would be letting New Yorkers down.”

“To somehow discount that and to say we are using cheap political theater to invoke the spirit of 9/11,” he chided, “I totally object to that.”

Sten tried to place the evening’s vote — and his own vote in favor of the resolution — in the context of the longer history of the JTTF issues as its come before Council in the past. “It is a completely false argument running through the other side of this argument that Portland is unilaterally withdrawing from this Task Force,” he said.

He explained that the first time the issue came before him on the Council, he had felt like the FBI was presenting the City with a “false choice”, simply between participating or not participating, entirely on the grounds the FBI presented and none other. “I did not like that choice,” Sten said, but he went along with it in part because in the near-immediate aftermath of 9/11 “we erred on the side of getting on the Task Force” at a moment “where we were all trying to figure out what is the best response to this situation”.

Sten said that the resolution before Council was an “entirely different approach that the false choice” offered by the FBI over the years. “This is a totally different choice, and it’s the right one.”

Over the years, Sten insisted, the Feds had taken no real steps to try to solve “these pressing problems” of local oversight. “Portland did not pull out, we waited three years,” he said. “There is a completely false notion that Portland is just pulling out of this,” Sten said. “Portland has worked very, very hard to remain in this.”

“It’s been an interesting few weeks,” said Potter. During that time, he said, he listened to the public, the police, lawyers, and “to my heart”.

“In this country,” he said, “there’s an old-fashioned principle that the police or the military have to be answerable to civilian oversight.” He argued that looking back on history, it’s clear that some people, when blindly given power, “sometimes that power is misused”.

He stressed that such abuses have happened “within our lifetimes” and that “we’re not talking ancient history, we’re talking about recent history”. He also made clear that the resolution impugns neither Portland’s police officers nor the Federal government.

“I don’t think Portland is a strange city,” Potter said. “I think, though, that we are concerned about ensuring that we have a proper balance between protecting people physical security, the property they own, and balancing that against their rights.”

“This is going to be in the best interests of our community in the long run,” he said. “We will see that this will work for us to ensure the safety of our people”.

And so, after much delay, many votes over the years in the other direction, and a seemingly limitless supply of distortion of the issues by the other side, the City Council of Portland, Oregon, voted 4 to 1 in favor of a resolution which will withdraw local police officers from the Joint Terrorism Task Force within ninety days.

With that vote, Portland became the first city in the nation to withdraw from a Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Faced with Commissioner Saltzman again demagoguing the issue and Mayor Adams revisiting the city’s potential membership, I invite you to browse all of my coverage of the debates from 2003 through 2005.