Meet Me Anywhere! Announcing the 100-City* Side Hustle Tour

Meet Me Anywhere! Announcing the 100-City* Side Hustle Tour

Meet Me Anywhere! Announcing the 100-City* Side Hustle Tour

Hey, everyone!

Two big things today…

My new book, Side Hustle, comes out on September 19. As part of that process, I now have the first batch of cities for my fall tour ready to go. And because pre-orders for the book make a huge difference for authors, I also have a special offer for you.

Chris Vancouver

1. The first part of my fall tour schedule is now online!

I’m incredibly excited to announce that the first 30 cities of my Side Hustle tour are now finalized!

Well, mostly—we’re still working out a few scheduling things. But I didn’t want to keep you waiting any longer… the tour starts next month!

If you’ve never been to one of my book events before, know that they are a lot of fun. Each stop is both interactive and introvert-friendly. You’ll learn something, we’ll have a chance to talk, and you’ll also meet a lot of other awesome people.

I’ve been doing unconventional book tours for seven years now, and I love every part of it. Last year I finished the 30-city Born for This tour and thought, “When can I do this again??”

I hope you’ll join me somewhere along the way for this one. Most stops are free, and everyone is welcome.

Sign up and tell your friends!

2. I’d love to send you a free report.

Ever since I started Side Hustle School on January 1, a lot of people have told me that their biggest challenge is finding the right idea. Well, every day on the show, I tell a story of someone who’s found an idea and turned it into a new source of income.

Still, sometimes you just need the ideas. I get it!

With that in mind, I’ve recently created a report featuring some of the best ideas from the show so far. It’s called “48 Hustle Ideas to Get You Started,” and it’s NOT for sale.

My new book, Side Hustle, comes out on September 19. If you pre-order it from any retailer (including Amazon or Barnes & Noble, but also your local bookstore), I’ll send you the report free.


I feel very fortunate that I can write for a living and serve a global community of remarkable people. Much more is on the way!

Yours in hustling,


Chris Guillebeau

Subscribe now and you’ll get the best posts of all time.


via The Art of Non-Conformity

August 22, 2017 at 06:25PM

Q&A: In an Arkansas Town, Music Is Key to a Comeback

Q&A: In an Arkansas Town, Music Is Key to a Comeback

What attractions are planned for the district?

The amphitheater and music hall will be venues for music concerts by both famous and lesser-known artists and also for touring Broadway shows. The cabaret restaurant will host performances by cabaret acts from around the world and also have comedy shows.


Terry Stewart, the chief executive officer of Ed Dorado Festivals & Events.

Murphy Arts District

The effort to revitalize El Dorado pulled you out of retirement. Why?

I met the principals of the Murphy Arts District, which is a nonprofit organization, when they came to Cleveland to see the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. I started visiting El Dorado every year for the MusicFest and fell in love with the town. I saw how the changes in the oil industry had led to a loss of jobs and left young people with no incentive to settle here, and I wanted to help.

Do you believe arts and entertainment is the best vehicle to achieve this vibrancy?

Absolutely. It’s a formula that’s worked with other towns around the United States — Marfa, in Texas, which is now a center for the visual arts, is an example.

Murphy Arts District is one element of the redevelopment. What’s next?

There’s a $32 million renovation of the Rialto Theater, a 1920s-era vaudeville theater with more than 850 seats. It should be done in the next three years and is being restored to its original state, neon lights and all.

The theater will have music concerts, showings of second-run movies and live HD broadcasts of productions such as performances of the Metropolitan Opera.

El Dorado aside, why do you think small cities in the United States make appealing travel destinations?

Because many retain their historical roots and have their original buildings, charming town squares and picturesque small parks. They’re often a throwback to another era that is increasingly hard to come by these days.

Continue reading the main story


via NYT > Travel

August 22, 2017 at 06:12PM

Chasing the Deal: In St. Lucia, a Celebration of Chocolate

Chasing the Deal: In St. Lucia, a Celebration of Chocolate


Guests walking the estate at Jade Mountain, where they learn about the tree-to-bar production process.

Jade Mountain

St. Lucia’s once-thriving cocoa industry is undergoing a slow revival, said Eurice Henning, who grew up on a farm with cocoa trees in the northeast of the island and started the bean-to-bar chocolate company, Amazona Cocoa, a few years ago. “There are a few companies that popped up in St. Lucia making their own chocolate bars,” Ms. Henning said. “Now, people are starting to see the value in coming up with different chocolate creations.”

Some St. Lucia properties such as Boucan, a boutique hotel on a cocoa plantation owned by the British chocolate manufacturer Hotel Chocolat, offer cocoa-related activities regularly.

But this summer and fall, several cocoa farms and hotels are offering new packages and deals that coincide with the island’s first Chocolate Heritage Month in August.

The Jade Mountain resort, producers of Emerald Estate Chocolate, grows more than 2,000 cocoa trees on its estate and organic farm in the Soufriére hills. The Chocolate Alchemy package which runs through Oct. 15, includes a fourth night free during a four-night stay (from $5,248 per couple) or two nights free during a seven-night stay (from $8,320 per couple) in a Jacuzzi suite. The package includes a cocoa estate tour, bean-to-bar chocolate tasting and lesson in basic chocolate-making techniques at the resort’s Chocolate Lab, along with airport transfers, daily breakfast and dinner and one chocolate-infused spa treatment per person.

Its sister property, Anse Chastanet, is offering a Dan Dous (sweet tooth in Creole patois) package during the same time period with similar activities and amenities included, from $2,398 per couple for a four-night stay (fourth night free) or $3,730 per couple for a seven-night stay (two nights free).

Sugar Beach, part of the Viceroy Resort group, has a new chocolate-sculpting room where guests can learn how to prepare chocolate truffles from local, organic cocoa beans, as well as traditional St. Lucian cocoa tea. The 90-minute class ($110) is available year round on request.

Continue reading the main story


via NYT > Travel

August 22, 2017 at 06:12PM

It’s Time to Close the Gap Between Corporate and Leisure Travel Tools

It’s Time to Close the Gap Between Corporate and Leisure Travel Tools

Skift Take: Leisure travel has seen increased technology capabilities in recent years, but managed travel still lags far behind. Using an integrated tool that incorporates mobile experiences found in the leisure space can help close the gap to improve traveler satisfaction, drive adoption, and increase savings.

— Dawn Rzeznikiewicz

It’s no secret that the pace of change within corporate travel technology has been sluggish, especially compared with the innovations that have taken place in leisure travel over the last few years. Travel management companies and travel managers are increasingly incorporating mobile travel strategies into their programs, but many travel managers and travelers alike remain frustrated at the lack of user-friendly, all-encompassing tools out there.

A survey conducted in 2016 by the GBTA Foundation in partnership with Sabre found that more than seven in 10 business travelers in the United States, Italy, Canada, and Spain prefer using self-service technology to have greater control of their own travel. However, the survey also found that travelers who use such tools often have to use multiple apps and services to manage the various aspects of their trip. Despite the move toward mobile technology tools, the landscape still remains fragmented.

Whether a traveler is booking a flight or hotel, keeping track of an itinerary, making a mobile payment, reporting expenses, or looking for assistance when something goes wrong, he or she should be able to turn to a single tool to be able to do so. Incorporating the full range of technologies that travelers need into a single mobile platform, no matter where they are on the travel journey, can provide a holistic experience for the traveler and help alleviate traveler friction.

But it’s not just about the traveler—the travel manager should also be able to manage their programs as efficiently as possible. A 2015 survey of travel managers by the GBTA Foundation in partnership with Sabre found that this group is constantly looking to identify new technology-driven solutions to better manage their travelers––and mobile is an increasing focus. Eight out of 10 travel managers expect mobility, such as mobile booking and itinerary management, to become a “higher” or “much higher” priority over the next few years.

A complete pre-trip to expense reporting solution also drives compliance with company policy. A study from the Aberdeen Group found that such a solution leads to a 44 percent increase in company policy compliance. Beyond compliance, using a single integrated mobile tool to streamline procurement operations, update policies, manage reservations, and keep tabs on their travelers can help the travel manager drive savings, safety, and traveler satisfaction.

“Travel is a strategic investment for corporations that can bring significant returns while providing a great traveler experience. Using a platform that provides scalable innovation fuels experience and efficiency,” said Rodolfo Silva, vice president of corporate sales and account management at Sabre. “In the past, you had to give up one to have the other. That’s no longer the case.”   

Helping to close the gap, the Sabre Traveler Experience integrated solution provides a seamless mobile experience from pre-trip to expense reporting while addressing key in-transit travel needs and cost-saving opportunities. It integrates a suite of products into one mobile experience which includes booking, itinerary management and messaging, virtual payments, expense reporting, and travel risk management.

This content was created collaboratively by Sabre and Skift’s branded content studio, SkiftX.


via Skift

August 22, 2017 at 05:02PM

Trump’s Confused and Troubling Afghanistan Speech

Trump’s Confused and Troubling Afghanistan Speech

One of the many confused aspects of the Afghanistan war-expansion plan
that President Donald Trump announced on Monday night—which lacked basic
details, most notably the number of American lives it might involve—was
the geography. In specifying the reasons for military action in
Afghanistan, he cited battles fought in Iraq and, notably, the perfidy
of Pakistan, which had “sheltered” terrorist networks. Indeed, there
were junctures at which he could have been laying out the rationale for
military action in Pakistan or elsewhere. After questioning Pakistan’s
“commitment to civilization,” he said that, in Afghanistan and Pakistan,
“we must stop the resurgence of save havens” and “prevent nuclear
weapons from coming into the hands of terrorists”—a possibility specific to Pakistan, which has more than a hundred nuclear bombs within
reach of a military whose officers often have dubious allegiances.
(Afghanistan has no such weapons.) Trump continued, “To prosecute this
war, we will learn from history.” Perhaps he will, but could Americans
at least have learned, from his speech, which country, or countries, he plans
to wage “this war” in?

Not, it seems, if Trump has anything to do with it. The entire speech
was a tirade against boundaries and borders and the systems of
accountability that are meant to keep America from getting involved in
unending wars conducted in manners that later make us ashamed. Its most
extraordinary line may have come as he described how American strategy
“in Afghanistan and South Asia” will “dramatically change” in the coming
days: “We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further
military activities.” There are, in any war, secret deployments and
operations, but Trump is enshrining the idea of secret wars, with
secretly mustered armies. In briefings to reporters, various
Administration officials have mentioned deploying four thousand
additional troops, with the intimation that there were generals who
wanted Trump to send more. He has made it easy for that number to be
elastic, and to stretch without public restraint.

His plan for the war, on a tactical level, is to hand it over to
“wartime commanders”—a striking phrase. “Micromanagement from
Washington, D.C., does not win battles,” Trump said. But differentiating
between the micro and the macro has never been one of Trump’s strengths.
And a lack of leadership, including moral leadership, can lose not only
battles but wars. Trump said that he had already “lifted restrictions”
on what troops could do in the field, and would lift more, so that they
had ever greater power to act “in real time, with real authority.” It is
hard to know exactly what this will mean, given that American forces
already have a great deal of leeway. A certain number of restraints
involve concern for the lives of civilians. Even with those now in
place, there have been incidents like the American air strike, in 2015,
that hit a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan,
killing forty-two people and cutting off access to medical care for many
more. If Trump cannot see how these are not only tragedies but moments
that turn populations against the United States, we may see a very long
war get longer and more brutal.

He does not see it, as far as one can tell from his speech. He spent a
good deal of it deriding the idea that we would ask anything of our
allies other than that they deliver “victories.” And give us money: he
bragged about how much he had gotten out of NATO, and said that the point
of economic development in Afghanistan should be “to help defray the
cost of this war to us.” He added, “We will not dictate to the Afghan
people how to live, or how to govern their own complex society. We are
not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists.” And: “We are not
asking others to change their way of life.” There is an argument for
moving away from “nation-building,” but jettisoning standards of
governance entirely, when coupled with an open-ended military
commitment, can be disastrous. Afghanistan’s corruption is not an
abstract matter for moralists. It is one of the reasons for the waste of
American resources that were sent, supposedly, to train the Afghan military. In
some cases, Afghan commanders submitted fake tallies of soldiers and
then pocketed their salaries, which the U.S. paid; in January, a few
days before Trump’s Inauguration, the Wall Street Journal reported
that the Pentagon was working to remove thirty thousand suspected
” from the rolls, as part of an anti-corruption drive. Is that the sort of
namby-pamby effort that Trump wants to abandon?

Trump, in explaining his secrecy, repeated another of the complaints
that he made regularly on the campaign trail: that President Obama, in
setting a target date for an end of major American troop commitments in
Afghanistan, was just telegraphing to the Taliban forces how long they
had to hold out. But Obama’s intended audience for that deadline, as he
had made clear in his own speech on sending more troops to Afghanistan,
in December, 2009, was the Afghan government: it was the mechanism for
holding its members accountable, for pushing them to get beyond the
contemplation of what could be done with the current supply of American
forces and cash. What Trump has substituted is “a shift from a
time-based approach to one based on conditions.” But when and how will
those conditions be met—and on what battleground? For example, Pakistan
is a problem—one Obama spoke about, too—and has acted badly, but it’s
not clear how Trump will fix that by saying, as he did in the speech,
that he wants to draw India further into Afghanistan.

“Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win,” Trump said, as
if that explained it all. He continued, “From now on, victory will have
a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing
Al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and
stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.” The
second and third of those items have some semblance of clarity, and
could in theory be the basis of a renewed counterterrorism initiative.
But, aside from the broad scope suggested by the goal of stopping future
“mass terror” attacks, which can be planned from anywhere, there is the
question of whom Trump numbers among our “enemies.” At home and abroad,
the list seems to expand with his temper and the shift of his attention.

And by what authority would he be acting? There was no call, in Trump’s
speech, for any sort of action or affirmation by Congress. In Obama’s
2009 speech, he cited, in addition to various treaties and international
resolutions, Congress’s 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force
against Al Qaeda and its “associated forces,” which was passed three
days after the September 11th attacks. The language of the A.U.M.F. is
vague enough for it to have been invoked as the legal basis for actions
in Libya and Syria. Its continued use in Afghanistan makes more sense,
or would if there were any delineation of the mission there. Congress,
which is supposed to declare wars, bears a great deal of responsibility
for this continued open-endedness. People in both parties have realized
for years that the evolution of the A.U.M.F. into, essentially, a
multi-country war pass is a problem, but they haven’t really done
anything about it. Trump said, “These killers need to know they have
nowhere to hide, that no place is beyond the reach of American might and
Americans arms.” It is worth asking if he imagines that there is any
place beyond the reach of his current, unaugmented authority to wage a
protracted war. In the short run, he and Obama may end up with similar
troop levels, but the two men differ in their commitment to specificity and
accountability, which often determines the course that a war takes.

Trump’s adoption of the policy is, to some extent, a sign of the
influence of the military men around him. It is tempting to see it as a
victory for H. R. McMaster, his national-security adviser (who,
according to the Washington Post, persuaded Trump that Afghanistan had
potential with the help of “a black-and-white snapshot from 1972 of
Afghan women in miniskirts walking through Kabul”), and a setback for
some allies of Steve Bannon. But Trump is still Trump, whoever is around
him. In that sense, the least interesting aspect of the speech was his
acknowledgment that he has sometimes sounded like an isolationist who
wanted to ditch the whole Afghanistan project: “My original instinct was
to pull out—and, historically, I like following my instincts.” (That
line, and one in which he got to call terrorists “losers,” may have been
meant as light, self-aware touches in a leaden speech; they didn’t
work.) In truth, Trump has never been consistent about that (or
anything), and has regularly coupled his declarations of being done with
Afghans and other foreigners with complaints about the failure to seize
their military wealth, to bomb them with sufficient vigor, or to be
ready to torture the prisoners that conflicts yield. Trump may not
conceive of himself as an interventionist, but he has always been an
adventurist. Now he has generals, and now he wants to fight.


via Everything

August 22, 2017 at 04:34PM

Trump 2020 Potential Campaign Slogans

Trump 2020 Potential Campaign Slogans

“Of course he’s running for reëlection.”
—Sarah Huckabee Sanders, White House deputy press secretary.

Trumpnado 2: Not This Again

2Trump 2Spurious

Trump and Pence’s Bogus Presidency

Air Trump: Orange Retweeter

White House Party 2: Pajama Jammy Jam (FOR TENS ONLY!)

Clear Eyes. Full Hearts. Can’t Impeach.

Solar-Eclipse Glasses Are Fake News! (pre-eclipse slogan)

The Blind Leading the Blind (post-eclipse slogan)

You Will Not Replace Us (Suggested by Some of Trump’s “Very Fine” Friends)

America: Great and Greaterer

With Liberty and Justice for Nobody

Benghazi! E-mails! Crooked Hillary!

She’s Running Again, Right?

When They Go Low, We Go High (Melania’s Suggestion)

Trump Two. Or Is It Trump Too? Trump To!

Securing Our Nonsecure Borders

Securing Our Desecure Borders?

Donald J. Trump: Lincoln Reincarnated

Donald J. Trump: My Crowd Was Bigger Than Lincoln’s

Trump 2020: He’ll DEFINITELY Release His Tax Returns This Time

Trump 2020: Psych! Still Under Audit

I’m the President, So You’re All Losers

Tweeter-in-Chief 2: Next Stop, Emojiville

That’s One Small Step for White Man, One Giant Leap Backward for Everyone Else

Who Else Will I Ban? Stay Tuned to Find Out!

Building a Bridge to the Nineteenth Century

The Non-Democrat Candidate—Need I Say More?

2016: Twitter President; 2020: Snapchat President (You Know You’re Curious)

To Err is Human; To Collude, Divine

With Great Power Comes Great Reprehensibility

“The Apprentice” Season 16: The One Where Ivanka Fires Jared

Seriously? I Didn’t Even Want This Job

Can’t Ivanka Just Do It?


via Everything

August 22, 2017 at 04:34PM

The Front Row: “Daddy Longlegs”

The Front Row: “Daddy Longlegs”

No, the Safdie brothers Josh and Benny, the directors of the crime drama “Good Time,” haven’t robbed banks, but that movie has strong autobiographical elements
nonetheless: they know street-scuffed chaos firsthand, and the
peculiarities of their experience, from their grown-up perspective on
their turbulent childhood, is the subject of their 2009 feature “Daddy
Longlegs” (which I discuss in this clip). It’s the story of two young
boys’ two weeks with their father, who, in the wake of his divorce from
their mother, has custody of them only for that short span, during which
they’re still in school and he’s working as a projectionist. As a
result, the boys’ childhood—a proxy for that of the Safdies—is imbued with movies, and “Daddy Longlegs”
shows that the turmoil of that period was also the awakening of an
artistic sensibility.

The father in the movie is played by Ronald Bronstein, the director of
“Frownland,” which is one of the great modern American films, and
one of the seminal independent films of the century. He co-wrote and
co-edited “Good Time” and the Safdies’ previous movie, “Heaven Knows
What”; Bronstein co-edited “Daddy Longlegs” as well, and it even seems as if he
virtually co-directed parts of it from within the frame. He’s one of the
great creators of modern cinema, and—though it would be optimal if
he were also continuing to direct movies himself—it’s a mark of the
Safdies’ originality to make him a part of their cinemasphere.
Authorship in movies has never been in contradiction with collaboration.
On the contrary, it’s no surprise that actors, cinematographers, and
other participants are almost always at their best and most distinctive
when they work with great directors—because great directors’ artistic
sensibilities are strong enough to expand to the scope of their
collaborators’ own extremes, and free enough to help those collaborators
tap into them. (Robert Pattinson’s extraordinary performance in “Good Time” is another prime example.)


via Everything

August 22, 2017 at 04:34PM

What Are Trump’s Advisers Saying Behind Closed Doors?

What Are Trump’s Advisers Saying Behind Closed Doors?

Someday, when all that’s been happening has receded into the
semi-distant past, historians may be able to answer a fascinating
question: What were the people who worked for Donald Trump, the nation’s
forty-fifth President, really saying to one another?

It’s no secret that some of those people closest to Trump—close, that is, in the ways of Washington, though not
necessarily close in a personal way—are deeply worried about the nation,
and torn, if that’s the word, between duty to country and a tug of
loyalty to the man who appointed them to their posts. When, following
the wrenching events in Charlottesville, the President expressed a
strange tolerance for
a glance at the bowed head of the White House chief of staff, John
Kelly, revealed an attitude of sadness and bafflement. At the same
event, Gary Cohn, the former Goldman Sachs president and Trump’s chief
economic adviser, who is Jewish, looked miserable and was
said to be
“disgusted” and “upset,” ready to bolt. Along with Defense Secretary
James Mattis, national-security adviser H. R. McMaster, Secretary of
State Rex Tillerson, and several others, Kelly and Cohn seem like pillars of
sanity in a time of chaos, a growing contrast to an unmoored President.

As for what Mattis, Kelly, and the rest say to one another, it doesn’t
take much to imagine that the most pressing topic has been “What are we
going to do with this fellow?” It is to be hoped, for history’s sake,
that they’re keeping notes on their conversations, both formal and
social, recalling their honest discussions at private meals and even
remarks exchanged in washrooms. In time, there will be more to learn
from memoirs, although their quality will depend on the indiscretion,
the observational talent, and, particularly in the case of the recently
departed Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, the rage level of their
authors. The most interesting recollections might come from
Vice-President Mike Pence; his docility and dutiful fawning have left
his principles somewhat compromised, and his heartbeat-away status
forces him to be especially careful, even in the way that he looks at
his chief (that is, never askance). But he’s undoubtedly heard a lot.

While researching a book on the relationship between President Dwight
Eisenhower and his Vice-President, Richard Nixon, I came across the
substance of some extraordinary telephone conversations between Nixon
and John Foster Dulles, then the Secretary of State, wondering what
would need to be done if Eisenhower, who had suffered a minor stroke in
late November, 1957, were no longer able to perform his duties. Dulles
thought that they were liable to face a situation in which the President
would be incapable of acting, without recognizing his own incapacity. Nixon
worried, too, that Eisenhower’s judgment might no longer be sound and
that no one around him “would be able to exercise judgment or control.”
At one point, when Eisenhower seemed worrisomely energetic, Dulles
telephoned the President’s doctor to ask if there might be a way to
“control him medically.” Eisenhower, though, made a rapid recovery;
there was no need for extra-constitutional improvisation.

Trump, in the manic seven months since his Inauguration, has lacked the
essential quality of Presidential leadership, which is to be able to
hold the trust, respect, and confidence of a majority of Americans; its
absence now casts doubt over any decision he makes. The same doubts
plagued President Nixon, forty-three years ago, amid the final crisis in
the Watergate scandal: the release of a tape on which he was heard
trying to shut down an F.B.I. investigation—a clear obstruction of
justice. (That “was the final blow, the final nail in the coffin,
although you don’t need another nail if you’re already in the coffin,
which we were,” he later told his aide Frank Gannon.)

Nixon was losing not only the confidence of the nation but also of his essential
constituencies, and much the same seems to be happening to Trump. The people who have recently distanced themselves from the President include Tennessee’s Senator Bob Corker, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, who was previously on a short list for Secretary of State, and who last week said, “The President has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor
some of the competence that he needs to demonstrate in order to be
successful”; the business leaders on two now-defunct Presidential advisory councils,
who had begun to resign just before Trump dissolved the panels; and the
chiefs of all four military services, who spoke out against racism following Trump’s divisive remarks after Charlottesville.

When Senator Barry Goldwater and a senatorial delegation informed Nixon,
in August of 1974, that his Presidency was over, Nixon, a rational man,
attuned to history and politics, was wise enough to agree, though not
without suffering. It’s not far-fetched to wonder if the investigations
being led by the special counsel Robert Mueller—starting with Russian
interference and possible collusion in the 2016 election, but, as my
colleague Adam Davidson recently wrote, very likely extending into
Trump’s finances
put the President in equally serious legal jeopardy. If so, which
Republican leaders would have the authority, and the stature, to carry a
“Goldwater message” to Donald Trump? And if it were delivered, how would
he react?


via Everything

August 22, 2017 at 04:34PM