I like. You like?
Open the .pdf to get a better view. If you like, please download and distribute; if you don’t like, please make suggestions for improvements in the comments!
2007.03.07 by paulie
I like. You like?
Open the .pdf to get a better view. If you like, please download and distribute; if you don’t like, please make suggestions for improvements in the comments!
Posted in Uncategorized | 20 Comments
Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp
Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left
| << prev | next >> |
| list | random | join |


I think the written content of the brochure is outstanding. On this kind of medium, you have a very limited amount of space to make the crucial points and make them emphatically. Mission accomplished!
The content seems very good, but it seems a bit out of order. Presumably this is a tri-fold and the photo panel will be the “cover” of the brochure. When you open that, the first thing you will see is the “Pro-family”panel. It seems that that is actually the 2nd page of the “issues” pages with the “Our Birthright” panel being the 1st page. Switching those two panels so that the “Our Birthright” panel is the first seen when the brochure is opened seems to make more sense to me. Otherwise good job.
Nice job, Paul and Tom. The brochure looks really good.
Just Tom.
All I’m doing is reposting.
Decent brochure, something that I would not be feel embarrassed about handing out.
Glad y’all like it!
Rocky — I wrestled around with the order quite a bit, and came up with the order it’s in for this kind of flow:
1) Cover
2) Positions in a sort of “bullet point” format. If the reader stops here, at least he or she knows where Steve stands on some important things.
3) Slightly extended explanation of positions — if the reader liked the positions, hopefully that explanation will pull him or her in further.
4) Party recruitment pitch — if the reader liked the positions and agreed with the extended explanation, time to “close the deal” and get him or her involved!
5) Candidate bio — Priority 1 is building the party/movement, but we also hope that once involved, the reader will want to support the guy what brung him/her to the dance.
6) The rear panel — “give us your name, tell us we can contact you, send us money.” Obviously we hope that happens!
This is the first (actually second, but the first was a complete bomb) brochure. There will be others, and I’ll look at following your flow suggestions with the next one. I know I’m not a professional brochure designer, but right now I’m playing one on the Internet … so thanks for the coaching!
Regards,
Tom Knapp
I like it with the exception of three items:
1. (Under Pro Family): Instead of saying you don’t want to ban gays from “marrying”, I think it would be better to state that government should have no role in deciding who can and can’t get married, that they should get completely out of the marriage business, without mentioning polarizing words such as gay & straight. It says all the right things.
2. (Under Pro Defense): I would stay away from insinuating at all that anyone should be hired with stolen money. In fact, if this stays in the brochure, I probably won’t support Kubby for the nomination.
and
3. (Under Our Birthright):
The truth, whether it’s “politically correct” to say or not, is that political government was designed in the first place, and exists to, harass and destroy productive members of society, not to protect rights. The latter is just wishful thinking. I’d stay away from promoting political government at all, regardless of how you’d like to reform it to fit your ideals. Abolition is what we’re after, albeit you don’t necessarily have to say it so starkly in an outreach brocure.
I agree with Gary under the Pro Family section. I think the phrase “same sex” is so polarized that it would turn a lot of people off simply because these words. I think it would be more appealing to more people if it was changed to something along the lines of not believing government should regulate marriage at all.
Gary,
Remember, these are “bullet points,” not fully developed position statements.
1. The same-sex marriage thing is topical. It’s the SPECIFIC issue on marriage that people care about NOW. And that’s what there’s room to address in a “bullet point” format. Steve addresses the whole issue at greater length elsewhere, from exactly the standpoint you advocate, including in an op-ed that’s being pushed to various California newspapers right now. Here’s a pull quote:
—–
There are two sides to marriage, and neither of them are the government’s business.
On one side, we have emotional commitment expressed in a ceremony — usually, though not always, a religious ceremony. On the other, we have a standardized form of legal contract applying to the practical and legal matters arising from that commitment. The maximum extent to which the government of California has any legitimate business in these affairs is in even-handed enforcement of those contracts. Certainly it has no business peering under the clothing of the ceremony’s participants, or comparing the genitalia of the parties to the contract.
—–
2. The “pro-defense” section doesn’t insinuate ANYTHING about how the military should be funded, because it doesn’t address that issue at all. The “bullet point” is “bring the troops home.”
Insofar as the nature of political government is concerned, I’d hold that in the designated context, it wasn’t “designed” at all — it is an “unintended consequences” outgrowth of pre-state assumptions of power. The concept of limiting those assumptions of power to specific maximums, not eliminating them altogether, is the basis of the polity that Steve is seeking an election to the executive position of.
As an anarchist, I’m all for doing away with political government altogether … but a political campaign for a position within a political government isn’t the vehicle through which to pursue that goal. Some principled libertarians therefore eschew electoral politics altogether, and I respect that. My reasons for not doing so come down to a) seeing the achievement of interim goals within the existing system as a way of putting us within striking distance of the ultimate goal, and b) being a political junkie.
To the extent that I can speak for Steve, I am unaware of any aspect of political government he wouldn’t eliminate, given the opportunity, or cut if elimination is not possible. But, at this time, he’s running for an elected position within an existing system. While that doesn’t prevent him from making revolutionary proposals within that system’s basic parameters, proposing to eliminate the system altogether within a 4- or 8-year term in one position within that system doesn’t make any sense. He couldn’t do it even if he was elected, so why propose it to people he’s asking to elect him? They’re interested in what he can and will do if elected, not in what he could or would do if a mutant spider bit him and gave him superhuman powers.
Ditto for the party. There are libertarian institutions dedicated to the elimination of political government, and I’m involved with some of them. The Libertarian Party is not such an institution. It’s the part of the libertarian movement that’s focused on imposing changes on an existing system, rather than on the elimination of the system. Hopefully the former will make the latter easier, but the two goals aren’t the same. To the extent that the LP and its candidates are involved in electoral politics, they are serial rather than parallel goals (although in the larger context, I consider them parallel — “building the new society in the shell of the old one” and so forth).
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Quick note: I may have zapped a legitimate comment or two while deleting spam.
If that was you, my apologies, it was inadvertant.
Federal election law requires you to solicit Employer as well as Occupation, IIRC.
Since the federal maximum is $2,100, you might want the last box before Other to say $2,100 rather than $2,000.
Is there a reason that the About Steve Kubby section doesn’t mention Michele?
Much better! What are you using for layout? I haven’t read the text, so here’s some general comments:
(1) Try for another picture. That one makes him look looming, in my opinion.
(2) Include more graphics.
(3) Choose right justified or full justified and use the same for all the panels – don’t mix. And CERTAINLY don’t mix within the same panel!!
(4) Seriously reconsider the ALL CAPS in the headers. And seriously consider a sans serif font for the headers.
(5) (very minor) I personally prefer the serial comma, so instead of “It’s time to take our freedom back, and to drastically
reduce the size, scope and power of government,” I’d write “It’s time to take our freedom back, and to drastically
reduce the size, scope, and power of government.” (OK, I did read a little of the text).
(6) The fan of brochures at the top of this page looks different. Is that just the cover image reproduced several times for effect? The white border looks amateurish. If you aren’t going to do a bleed and professional printing (which is a fine for something you want people to distribute from their own printers) don’t try to make a front cover that looks like an imitation of a full-color slick brochure.
(7) related to above: produce a B/W version in high-res PDF form for people to print. Don’t force activists to have to tinker to get the settings right.
(8) Make the URL bigger. Don’t underline it. Consider dropping the ‘www’.
(9) Steve Kubby is “the pro-family presidential
candidate.” What’s up with the quotes? Lose ‘em!!!
Gee, this is MUCH more fun than work
But it doesn’t pay the bills nearly as well, so I’m off!!
The FEC contribution limit is now inflation-indexed, and is up to $2,300 as of January 23 this year.
Steve and Michele are separated. The strain of all those years of struggle finally got to them.
I wrote: (9) Steve Kubby is “the pro-family presidential
candidate.” What’s up with the quotes? Lose ‘em!!!
I see on second glance that this is a sort of motif you’ve chosen. I don’t like it. It’s a waste of words. At the VERY least, lose the quotes. Putting things in quotes makes it look like you’re trying to be ironic. But honestly the whole line is a waste in my opinion. What candidate would NOT call himself “The pro-family presidential candidate”?!? Why waste all that lovely space? [Incidentally, what's the font size?] Also, the header SAYS he is ‘pro-family’ (‘pro-freedom’, etc.) Instead, concentrate on explaining HOW he is pro-family, pro-freedom, etc.
Tom, feel free to contact me if you’d like a professional editing of the brochure. I think I could tighten/brighten up the writing and offer some more comments about layout, etc. These things would make a large difference, I think.
If the Ron Paul thing falls through, I will gladly be humping this brochure all around Columbus, OH.
Susan,
Thanks for the suggestions:
“Much better! What are you using for layout?”
Actually, I’m laying out in OpenOffice, using a trifold brochure template. I think I have some Adobe publishing software around here (Acrobat and their DTP package). If I can ever find it, I’ll fire up the significant other’s lap top and start working with that. It’s been so long since I’ve done “traditional” publishing that I’m pretty much feeling my way out of the “cut out Zip-O-Tone for the photos, and paste it onto the layout board” era. But I’m trying.
“(1) Try for another picture. That one makes him look looming, in my opinion.”
I’m in a dilemma there. I have other good pictures, but I don’t have other good HI-RES pictures. Getting Steve to a photographer for some new head shots is on the to-do list.
“(2) Include more graphics.”
After looking the thing over, I agree. I’ll see what I can do.
“(3) Choose right justified or full justified and use the same for all the panels – don’t mix. And CERTAINLY don’t mix within the same panel!!”
Yup. I thought I had gone through and full justified all the text. My bad. Next version (hopefully in days rather than weeks) will be fixed.
“(4) Seriously reconsider the ALL CAPS in the headers. And seriously consider a sans serif font for the headers.”
I’ll have another look at that. I admit to a bias toward serif fonts.
“(5) (very minor) I personally prefer the serial comma”
Can’t help you there — that’s a pet peeve of mine going the other way (as a matter of fact, I usually go off into rants about proper punctuation when the subject comes up). They can put that extra comma on the page when they pry it from my cold, dead keyboard.
“(6) The fan of brochures at the top of this page looks different. Is that just the cover image reproduced several times for effect?”
Yes.
“The white border looks amateurish. If you aren’t going to do a bleed and professional printing (which is a fine for something you want people to distribute from their own printers) don’t try to make a front cover that looks like an imitation of a full-color slick brochure.”
Here’s where we’re back into dilemma territory:
Criticisms of the first brochure (including yours) came down to “looks like some schmoe cobbled it together in Paintbrush. Hi-res that thing! Make it look professional!”
Those criticisms were right. On the other hand, I’m also trying to keep the thing printable from home, because that’s where it’s going to be printed. Most home printers require margins. I’d prefer to do everything against a white background on the cover to make that problem go away, but I don’t like the way the photo looks on white (and don’t have a hi-res that I DO like the look of yet), and haven’t figured out how to do a cover on white that doesn’t look either church-flierly bare or high-schoolishly busy.
Working on it.
“(7) related to above: produce a B/W version in high-res PDF form for people to print. Don’t force activists to have to tinker to get the settings right.”
On the way.
“(8) Make the URL bigger. Don’t underline it. Consider dropping the ‘www’.”
Good suggestions. Next edition.
“(9) Steve Kubby is ‘the pro-family presidential candidate.’ What’s up with the quotes? Lose ‘em!!!”
You go more into that in another comment. Suffice it to say that it’s part of a theme that’s broader than the brochure — basically an attempt to take the definition of “pro-family” back from the religious Right (and the definition of “pro-defense” away from the warmongers, and … well, so on and so forth) — and that promoting the discussing of the term’s meaning is as important as promoting the term. Maybe even more important. I’ll try to do a better job of it, though.
More later. I’m glad this was an improvement, and I’ll work on continuing to improve it.
Regards,
Tom
Quick revisit of #9: The *theme* is OK (well, it’s your choice, rather), the -presentation- of it is the issue.
Try instead something like:
Family
blahblah
Defense
blahblah
Having PRO- looks (forgive the pun) amateurish. And while reasonable folks can disagree on the use of the serial comma (though of course you’re dead wrong there:) the quotes HAVE to go. People use quotes to (1) make something stand out (you have the HEADER for that, and typography, and as a last fallback actual well-written text:) or (2) to indicate an ironic tone, as in “He so ‘family friendly’ (you TOTALLy do not want that, I assume), or (3) to actually quote people. Since (1) is obviously your intent, I’d suggest dropping that and using good writing (possibly combined with nice graphics and/or typography) to make the emphasis instead.
As you say; more later!
Why is editing more fun when I have to write, and writing more fun when I have to edit? :-/ Back to writing!
A quick word on images: get action shots, not glamour shots. Use a digital camera set on maximum res, take hundreds of pics, and something decent should shake out.
With all the other comments so far I can’t add to much and probably shouldn’t, but anyhow…
I’d take out the children’s names at the end. There are plenty of nuts in the world and we don’t need to give any of them any ideas. Then there is a privacy issue.
In the defense section you might re-arrange it so that you can spell out the fact that America has 270,000 troops abroad in over 120 countries. Most people have no idea how many we have abroad and I’d bet most politicains don’t either, or how much it has cost, but that is another flyer.
MHW
I like it just how it is. Good job Thomas!!!