Next Steps

 

In 2008 I voted for a Democrat for President for the first time. I did so, not because I agreed with everything that all Democrats said, then or now, but because first and foremost, I had come to believe that ensuring access to healthcare was a fundamental good, which would benefit all of us. One of those benefits was reducing abortion. There were other reasons too, but that was the chief one. That President Obama proposed to take the conservative Heritage Foundation's approach further gave me confidence that he was the right person for the job.

When Republicans pledged to make Obama a one-term President, and absolutely refused to work with him, their true colors started to show though. I believe that was the point that the Republican party started down the path that led to yesterday's assault on democracy.

But returning to why I first voted for a Democrat, I realized that I simply did not agree with several basic conservative ideas, especially when elevated to the point of dogma. For example, the idea that private enterprise is ALWAYS better than a government approach, the size and use of the military, foreign wars and what not, and the priority we should place on the national debt. (It seems we are all in agreement on that last one, at least for the next two weeks. Get ready to hear all about the national debt next month.)

I suspect that in the coming months, with Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress and the White House, they may go too far, and I will not always agree with what Democrats say. For that reason, while I have been vociferously opposed to President Trump, I don't usually advocate for any particular politician. They can advocate for themselves.

Fundamentally, I changed who I voted for because the Republican party and I both changed. There are Republicans like Mitt Romney, John McCain, and John Kasich (RINO's they are now known as in the Grand Old Party of Donald Trump) that I would vote for over some Democrats, especially if any given Democrat were to adopt a position as radically left-wing totalitarian as Donald Trump is fascist.

I stopped voting for Republicans, because Republicans did not represent my ideals.

I want to encourage you to help continue this trend.

In the next election, based on what has been perpetrated by a Republican President these past four years, and which culminated in yesterday's assault on democracy, consider if someone else can better represent you.

Lest we say that it is not Republicans but Donald Trump and a relatively small group of supporters that have done this, remember that Trump was selected from a slate of 14 options that included so many men and women more qualified then this child with totalitarian impulses.

He was democratically selected. He is the standard beror, chosen by the Republican people. He has been enabled for four years. People that finally stood up to him yesterday, Pence and McConnell for example, they helped bring this about. If what you saw yesterday is not you, leave the party. Change who you consistently vote for, even though you do not consider yourself a part of that party. (Like I'm not a Democrat, but I consistently vote for them right now.)

Now, here is the catch. Do not grow attached to any given alternative to the Republicans. In time they too may try the ties that bind us. Stand apart. Advocate for public policies you believe in. But don't unequivocally join a tribe.

Let Trumpism and the rotting Republican party be a cautionary tale.

Instead, enlargen the walls of the tent, and let all who love democracy come in.

Where should Republicans go from here? Here are my thoughts as an outsider, with lots of Republican friends I respect.

First, we need a healthy Republican party, or some follow-on to the party. I as an American first, want this for two reasons. First, because we need checks and balances, and without a loyal opposition of high integrity, Democrats will run off the rails. It's just human nature. Second, because the people that voted for all the Republicans up and down the tickets across the country are not going away (unless I can convince them to all vote for Democrats i.e. my post above LOL). But seriously, all people need good representatives.

While I am not likely to agree with Republican public policy positions or vote for them any time soon, I want them to exist and be a healthy party, with good representatives of high moral character.

If we could raise up a new party, that would be fine, but I don't think that is likely. I would say clean house, but I am not sure that is any more likely in the short term.

You may see an extremely conservative minority party emerge that is more professional, and less totalitarian than Trump. One led by people like Pence. But that would render them a regional party.

Republicans should not hold power in any significant way in the near term. They have forfeited that right temporarily. (That is, that is what should happen if the majority of voters agree with me.) But Republicans will re-emerge. And they should.

It is said that when a Supreme Court justice writes a minority (losing) opinion, they write for the future. Sometimes their minority position, or something like it is adopted at a later date. It is a sign post saying, "not all agree, there is a better way." We need Republicans to write the minority opinions, that we may return to in time if Democrats make poor choices. (And they will make some.)

Or to use another analogy from the world of law. We need a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and a judge and jury, in every case. Each has a role to play. Even when the defendant is guilty as sin.

In the short term I don't personally want Republicans to win elections. (Not because I am a Democrat, but because I don't agree with their public policy positions.) But they will win some, and we need them there to hold Democrats responsible--just as a good defense attorney holds a prosecutor accountable to doing their job the right way. A good prosecutor is a professional who respects the Constitution, in part because there is a defense attorney there to make sure that happens.

We need checks and balances. If the Republican party is rotten, then there is no one to hold Democrats accountable, and we need them held accountable.

Then, if Republicans evolve, and if things change over time with the passing of a generation, as they surely will, and if Democrats overreach, as they surely will to some extent, then you may just see me vote for a Republican again someday. Maybe. But not likely anytime soon.

Thoughts on Integrating Faith, Politics, and Public Policy

There are two things one does not talk about in polite company, religion and politics.  I happen to have a passion for both, and to various degrees, my professional life has moved in both circles.  Integrating these passions well then, is something I care about, and that leads to the question of how that should be done.

My goal here is not to set out a treatise for all people at all times.  Rather, I just want to share some thoughts based on my journey.

On the one hand, I do not think there should be a separation of church and state that extends to one’s own soul.  Nor do I see the state as the primary vehicle for extending Christ’s reign on earth. How then should a Christian live an integrated life when it comes to religion and politics?  And if I don’t see the state as the primary vehicle for extending Christ’s reign on earth, why care about it all?  I think the prophet Jeremiah gave a beautiful answer to this question, when he addressed the Jews who had been carried away into exile. He said, “seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”

A Memorial for those who fell in Afgaistan and Iraq?

I recently spent some time at the Vietnam War Memorial in Duluth. While there, it occurred to me that our generation needs to build some memorials for those who have fallen during our wars.

I did a quick google search to see if anything was in the works.  It seems Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery is the closest thing we have at the moment.  And some have pointed out that we just recently got the WWII memorial built, so it might be a while in the making. 

If and when something does get underway, I want to contribute in some small way.

Reflections on Memorial Day

Memorial Day makes me uncomfortable. It is meant to be about those that died, but with them absent, people want to thank those that served. I never saw combat. Like many, I joined the military for personal reasons, not altruistic ones. (College money.) It was pre-9/11, and Bosnia was in the headlines. Defending freedom was a distant thought.

I enjoyed serving, and got every last benefit out of the deal. I suffered nothing. So to be thanked for my service...

Today I think of those who died. Not people like me...

Don't get me wrong, compared to my college bound friends maybe I suffered a little.  One definitely gives up some freedoms. Air Force "boot camp" was rough, all six weeks of it. (The Army does 10, and the Marines do 13.) I did learn some powerful lessons about dealing with physical pain. (Not necessarily a big deal if you haven't physically broken anything.) And I'm sure my wife has benefited from the lessons in cleaning and ironing.

I also caught the worst cold of my life during combat support operations. (sarcasm alert) It turned into walking pneumonia. We were in northern California directly supporting operations in Iraq. They had us in these not so mobile, mobile trailers full of computer equipment for analyzing intelligence. 105 outside. 45 inside. Not good for your health.

One of my friends from high school who was in the 101 Airborne pointed out that the more appropriate name for my service was the Chair Force. I couldn't disagree. The chair I was in, analyzing intelligence, purportedly retailed for $500. I did feel compelled to point out that we got paid roughly the same. While I returned to my one person air conditioned dorm room, he was often sharing a ten man tent, where temperatures could reach 100 degrees.

Did I mention that I earned a Bachelor's degree debt free? And that the military helped pay for parts of two graduate degrees?
Some have pointed out that this is a pretty good deal.  And it is, but consider the numbers.  An enlisted soldier or sailor with the rank of E2, one of the most common junior ranks, is paid a salary of $1716.90, plus a tax free housing and food allowance of $869.05, for a gross total of $2585.95 per month. At 50 hours a week, that is about $12.92 per hour, plus free healthcare and other incidental benefits, and the GI Bill.

That is a good deal for a kid fresh out of high school with no marketable skills.

On the other hand, is it sufficient for combat, worth risking life and limb over? (No. So you get an additional $225 per month combat pay.)

While plenty of poor kids do join for the money and the training absent other prospects, it seems like the fellas on Wall Street could spare a few more dollars--if in fact these soldiers give us the freedom to make as much money as the market will bear.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not really all that worked up about this, I am just sharing my perspective.  Ultimately, it is a day for those that died, not for people like me. I'm just saying I don't like standing at church to be recognized for example, and I think I'm not alone.

You have to want to join. I did and am grateful for the opportunities I have been afforded.   

Reflections on the Affordable Care Act

The problems with Obamacare are well documented.  And they are real.  People have a right to be upset with the roll-out of the ACA.  But the fundamental premise that all Americans should have access to healthcare is being addressed, and it reflects a value for life and justice and generosity.

This article in the New York Times details some of the promises and ongoing problems of the ACA.

In some cases, those most vociferous on the problems are those that have done everything they can to derail it.  They are like a neighborhood bully who, having just rammed a stick through the spokes of a little boys bike says, "see I told you you would crash."

And then there are those who say, "we aren't opposed to access, we are just opposed to this approach."  But were were these people for the 20 or 30 years that this problem developed?  Obamacare addresses problems that were well documented and not being addressed.  Those problems could have been addressed in some other way in the years prior to Obama being elected.  If churches and non-profits should be at the forefront of this effort, why weren't they? Or why wasn't their effort adequate?  Why wasn't their enough of them?  Or did they do the best they could and the inadequacy of the effort prior to Obamacare just illustrates the limits of this approach?  (I'm not judging the efforts of those who were involved in non-profit healthcare prior to the ACA, I'm talking about the systemics of it.)

Finally there are criticisms of cost.  Several things are happening here.  First, American's are being asked to pay the real cost of their healthcare. (Or something closer to that number.)  In some cases, people were getting more than they were paying for.  Second, people are getting an insurance contract that is fundementally better than it was for many in the past.  The situation is similar to regulations on automobiles.  In some parts of the world, you can get a new car for substantially less than you can here in the States, but the workmanship, safety and efficiency all suffer.  You take your life in your hands driving these cars.   In the same way, people who use to have low-cost insurance plans, more than likely did not realize the extent of the exclusions and limitations on those plans.  In some cases they were paying for an insurance contract that was not worth the paper it was written on.  Having said this, this is one area I could see agreeing with conservatives.  Maybe American's should be free to buy bad insurance contracts.  I could see offering a super low-cost insurance contract that came with the equivalent of a Surgeon General's warning.  "Warning!  This contract does not comply with the requirements of the ACA and contains significant limitations, including..."

Having said all this, the problems at present are real.  Good intentions are not enough.  President Obama and his deputies need to deliver on the promises they made because those promises reflect a concern for life, and justice, and generosity.

Thoughts on Syria, foreign policy, and the use of force.

Some have suggested that our options on Syria are nothing, limited missile strikes, or all out war, and that none of these options are good, viable, or principled.  In contrast, I believe there is a fourth option that is both viable and principled: an extended air operation. The President could take a similar approach to the one taken in Libya and Kosovo, based on humanitarian principles. Rather than a limited missile strike, he could use an extended air operation, in conjunction with select rebels and special forces to have a more significant impact. I don't know that this is currently politically viable, but I do think it is what we should have done some time ago. I also appreciate that there are no guarantees on what would follow, so I don’t want to suggest that this would be a surefire effort, except in one respect. I believe it would almost certainly limit civilian deaths, even if additional people died via the bombing. In the long run, less people will die if the violence is ended through military action.

Do not live like there is no tomorrow, live for tomorrow.

"Live like there is no tomorrow."  Or, "Live like you are dying" - They are popular adages, quoted in movies and popular music, but there can be a problem with these notions if they are not done wisely.  If we live like there is no tomorrow, it can free us to do some great things... or some really dumb things.

In contrast, people who live like they want to see 100, or at least a vigorous 85, (at which age they sill plan to be enjoying life to the full), they plan ahead. They eat well, they save their money, and they don't streak for the hell of it.

You always hear the stories about people who took great risk and reaped great rewards, but people rarely write books about taking great risks, losing everything, and not being free to do anything, because they are in debt up to their eye balls, smashed up their body in an accident, caught a disease, or have lost a relationship that will never recover. Can God heal some of these things? Yes. Does he always? No. 

It's cool to say "I have no regrets." But lets be honest, most of us have regrets. Some consequences are long lasting.

In other words, there is a difference between wisely risking everything, and foolishly risking everything. So don't live like there is no tomorrow, live FOR tomorrow, by making wise, sometimes boring, choices today. THEN, if a level of counter-intuitive wisdom (maybe the Holy Spirit) says give it all up for a very good reason, then ok, go for it. But we should not simply live carefree for the hell of it.  Take responsibility for your future.  Make life happen, don't let life happen.

The Correlation Between Gay Rights and Religious Liberty

I grew up in a conservative Evangelical home, attending a conservative Evangelical church.  While my tribal allegiance is a moving target, I am a person of faith who values both religious freedom and gay rights, and I think there is a correlation between the two.

Our present notion of religious liberty was not a foregone conclusion when the Founding Fathers met in the State House of Philadelphia in 1787.  For the most part, the tradition of forcing morality on dissenters was common place.  The established churches of Europe forced out the Puritans, and then they forced out people that they disagreed with; people like RogerWilliams who championed religious freedom and fidelity to conscience. It was Williams who insisted on buying land from the Native Americans rather than simply taking it, and who in contrast to the Puritans, embraced religious diversity when he founded Rhode Island.

What gets preached AND what does not - From the pulpit AND in my life.

I wrote the following to a friend this mourning and thought I would share it with the rest of you. (with a few edits)  It is about me, not him, so no worries on confidentiality.  Read this as a letter to a friend.

...But to be fair, I am a bit cynical in some respects. It is something I reflect on fairly often with the Spirit in my quiet times. How does one see the world as it really is... ideally through His eye's, and not become cynical?

I was visiting a church the other day and they were preaching on God's immutability. Malachi 3:6a was referenced. “I the LORD do not change."

Clearly there was nothing wrong with what was being preached. And God's character was being made appropriately relevant to the hear and now. But like usual I briefly scanned the rest of the chapter, and a problem immediately jumped off the page.

The issue I saw was not necessarily one for any given church, or any given sermon, but rather concerns our shared Evangelical culture. The issue that leaped off the page at me was what we preach, thematically speaking, over the course of a year, and what does not get preached over the course of a year.

Malachi 3 is a perfect example of this.
(Go ahead and read it here, it won't take long.)

Things more than likely preached over the course of a year.
Mal 3:5a - sorcerers, adulterers are evil - check
Mal 3:6 - God does not change- Check
Mal 3:8-9 - Tithe - Check
Mal 3:17-18 - God's Compassion - Check

What got skipped?

The latter half of Mal 3:5 - "So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says the LORD Almighty."

Reflecting on Trayvon's tragedy and our ongoing need for racial reconciliation

In our national racial dialog, I think we need to distinguish between the systemics of injustice and the facts in any given case.  Yesterday, CNN published some new allegations on the Trayvon tragedy which raised some questions for me. (Note I did not say new facts.  We just don't know what all the facts are.)

In the systemics of prejudice and injustice we have so far to go.  Those that know me, know I am deeply concerned about injustice and prejudice...  individually and collectively.  The reaction to the Trayvon tragedy is completely understandable.  Everyday, children of color go missing, and too often the media doesn't give a damn, something in contrast to when a cheerleaderesq white girl disappears. This time the media did give it some attention, and that is a good thing.

But the fact is, we just don't know exactly what actually happened on the evening of February 26.  And until we do, a rush to judgement doesn't advance our national dialog on race.  Too many black men have been falsely accused for us to forget the consequences of a rush to judgement.

However, what we do know is that typically, the death of a white child is given a significant amount of resources, whereas in this case it appears the police did not give the case the investigative resources it deserved, begging the question, why?

If they did indeed fail to give Trayvon's death the attention it deserved, that is a grave injustice.  And one that ought to be protested vehemently.  Trayvon was not killed because he was wearing a hoodie.

However, acknowledging our collective failure to achieve an equal common good for all.  Acknowledging that we are not doing enough to solve this problem.  Acknowledging that police do not investigate every homicide equally and that racial stereotypes play a role.  None-the-less we have to stop and ask, is that what happened here?  I'm not sure we can know that; yet.

When we do, as the prophet Micah said, may there be justice, mercy, and humility.  And if the facts support the outrage, may there be protests.  May the perpetrators both of the actions and the inactions be brought to justice.  But more importantly, may there be solutions and dialog, honesty and truth telling, forgiveness and efforts toward our ongoing need for racial reconciliation; for reconciliation is not just an event, but an ongoing life-long process.

Vanderbilt and the Catholic Church - Organizations limiting religious freedom

Introduction
Father Araujo suggests in his piece, What is Freedom, that the distinction between who is pursuing a self-serving course of action and who is pursuing the other-serving course of action is clear. I agree. The Catholic Churches decision to limit the religious freedom of the people it serves as an employer when it acts as public employer is perceived by many as being self-serving. The freedom that faith affiliated public institutions want in relationship to the federal government is the same freedom they are denying to their employees who have a different faith or no faith at all. While freedom of religion is paramount, and I will argue on behalf of religious freedom momentarily, public employers that hire a plurality of people with unique views have unique responsibilities to their employees. In this pluralistic context, religious views should not allow the employer to impinge on the freedom, often the religious freedom of the employee. While people should have the freedom to associate, that freedom should not hinder the freedom of people in the minority at public institutions or private organizations that are free and open to the public, such as a faith based public hospitals.

To be clear, I would like to draw a sharp distinction between distinctively faith-based organizations such as churches, and those that choose to be open to the public. When they become public employers, employing people of a variety of faiths or no faith at all, public organization take on special responsibilities to the community and to individuals, among them, the responsibility not to infringe on the liberty of their employees.

Vanderbilt and the Catholic Church
A similar example of this can be seen in the recent Vanderbilt University case. In that case, a private organization that is open to the public, has taken the position that no student organization can discriminate against any student that wants to be a member of, or even an officer of a student organization, based on race, religion, sex, etc… The result is that it is possible for a person of Jewish faith to hold the position of treasurer in an Islamic affiliated organization, or an atheist to head a Christian organization. As a result, the Christian Legal Society (CLS) has advocated against this position because their constitution states that one has to be a Christian to be an officer of the Christian Legal Society.

The irony is that Vanderbilt’s position corresponds to the Catholic Churches position.

When it comes to Jesus, we are all unbelievers

Why I love Jesus but Hate Religion, is the title of a short spoken word video that has recently gone viral.  Let me just say at the top, I like the sentiment in it, but what I find interesting is the variety of perspectives on it.  We have both the non-religious giving it a shout-out, and the Evangelical crowd trying to draw a distinction between "religion" and the one true way.  Others are accurately pointing out how "religious" Jesus was, pointing to chapter and verse where he regularly went to the synagogue.

As is often the case, we commonly see what we want to see, myself included.  What Evangelicals see in this film is a line of reasoning that says, "I'm not merely religious, I take this stuff seriously.  A relationship with Jesus is so much more than mere religion."  While in contrast, the non-church attender sees in this video a version of Jesus they like, one which allows them to understandably reject what they see as the inconsistencies of religion.

But are Jesus and religion actually odds?  The answer is a mixed bag.

Doing the math on Obama's new student debt rules

I came across this article in USAToday on one of the new options on student loan repayment that Obama is implementing through executive order.  While students will still have more traditional options, he is replacing an option that required graduates to pay 15% of discretionary income over 25 years, with a plan that requires 10% over 20 year.  In both cases, any remaining balance is forgiven.  Some question the wisdom of forgiving loans when the government is in debt up to it's eyebrows.  But as you can see below, far from costing the government money, most of the time we the people will actually be making money.

On the militeristic language of scripture

There is a good blog post by Susan Stabil over on her blog which sets up this blog post.  I initially posted this as a response there.

The issue is this: is it ok to use the militaristic language found in the Bible when we pray?  Generally no.  While it might be acceptable on occasion, it is right there in the Bible after all, generally speaking, citizens of the greatest military war machine ever, should not conflate the violent language in scripture with the real world violence that is antithetical to the ways of Christ.  Why?  Because this conflation has led to innumerable exercises in military might when there might have been alternatives.  Paramount to understanding this position is a recognition that in war, it is not just the guilty who die but always the innocent as well.  If we believe the myth that modern warfare is clean and surgical, we will never understand the problem.  But when we come face to face with the reality of war, the real men women and children affected, we come to realize the increasing need for the transforming values of Christ, contrasted to the myth of peace through might which primarily brings suffering.

Troubling Comments at GOP Debates

There have been some troubling comments by the audiences at the recent GOP debates.  No matter one's vision of the greater good, these kind of attitudes detract from the humanity in all of us.

On Texas Executions 

On September 7, when asked about the number of Texas executions, there was wide-spread applause, and excited shrieks. (video)

On the Uninsured

On September 12, in response to a question about an uninsured 30 year-old patient on life support and who should pay, Ron Paul danced around the question, when the moderator followed up with "are you saying we should just let him die" several in the crowed yelled "yes!" (video)

On Gay Soldiers

On September 22, following a gay soldier's question on the repeal of "don't ask don't tell", the soldier was roundly booed. (video)

Why Christians Should Support a Mosque near Ground Zero

More than once I have heard stories of churches who were denied the opportunity to build a worship center where they deemed fit. Sometimes there was a hidden agendas, sometimes there were legitimate zoning issues. Regardless, they felt that their freedoms, their religious freedom no less, was being restricted.

Christians of Every Stripe Calling for Immigration Reform

You may be surprised to find out that churches of nearly every denomination and tradition are speaking out with one voice on immigration.

Together they are calling on the Federal Government to reform our present immigration laws.

Consistently, they are calling for three things.

• That immigrants be treated fairly, humanly, with dignity and respect.

• That the rule of law be respected, and shaped to meet the above standards.

• That we recognize that we ourselves are immigrants; that as Christians we come from a tradition of immigration, and that we therefor head the words of scripture, welcoming, loving and caring for those in need, including the immigrant, regardless of legal status.
  

Following are the statements on immigration of no less than eleven diverse christian organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals(2), Lutherans(2), Methodists, Presbyterians, Southern Baptists, and Episcopalians.

What Comes First, In Health Care, and Everything Else

Been talking some with a good friend of mine, David Baxley, about the whole health care debate. He and I see things differently, but what I like about David is that he tries to put his theology first, and then his politics. He tries to understand his God and then allow that relationship to shape his relationships with everything, and everyone else, including his politics.

I wonder, do you and I do the same, or are we first Conservative, or Progressive, a Man or a Women, a _________, whatever label you want to use, and only after that, a Christian, a Jesus follower?

Do we make God in our image or are we allowing him to shape us into his image. Do we read the Bible looking for those progresive verses, those conservative verses, or do we recognise the Bible for what it is, a story meant to help shape us into the image of Christ. Something meant to shape, not be shaped.

My take on potential global warming.

I'm not a scientist. Neither are most of you. So what to do about all the scientific claims on global warming.

Here is what not to do. Don't think that this issue is in any way actually related to any other issue that has become partisan.

I truly don't understand why virtually everyone that thinks abortion is wrong, also thinks global warming is false. Or why so many who think global warming is true, think the war in Iraq was a mistake from the beginning. One should be able to study an issue and come to a conclusion on that particular issue, irrespective of other issues. To me, the fact that this has become so partisan speaks to what I guess is obvious, the deep divide and mistrust that exists in this country. It is this latter point, as much as anything, that I find so troubling. We should be able to listen to people who are experts in their field, without judging them on every other issue, which they may or may not be qualified as an expert on.

So back to global warming. I chimed in on a facebook discussion page hosted by my denomination, the CRC, here.

Do you ChaCha?

On NPR I heard about this company, ChaCha to whom you can text or call-in a question and quickly get a response. What makes them different is that they employ real people to give you solid answers to your specific question. There are similar apps for google and other search engines, but all you get is internet based search results, in which it can be hard to find what your looking for.

Now the key point here is real people. For all you stay at home mom and dad's, guess what I do now while sitting on my couch watching my son? That's right, I'm one of the 55,000 or so "real people" getting paid $0.10 - $0.20 per question, to answer the worlds random questions.

What are people asking? Literally everything! Want to know if your flights on time? How much wood a woodchuck can chuck? or How much sodium is in a Big Mac? If your sitting in front of a computer, it's not too hard to find an answer, but what if your on the go? By calling 1.800.2ChaCha from a mobile text enabled phone, or texting cha cha, you will get a text answer of 160 characters in about four minutes. You can see some more examples here.

Another blogger talks about his experience, and some of the cultural impact here, describing it as the new magic eight ball. Want to know what to drink at the bar? Just ask ChaCha. We'll tell you. And USAToday talked about us extensively here.

How do I like working for them? It's great, though the pay for a newbie is lousy by hourly standards. (You are paid $0.10 - $0.20/question, which works out to about $2/hr, but this is while your doing other stuff as well. Faster people, focusing in their area of expertise can make closer to $6/hr, or so the company says) But if all your doing is sitting on the couch playing hearts on your computer, it's not a bad gig. Plus, you can sign up as an expert in certain areas of information, allowing you to receive a higher payout, which also allows you to learn new things about items your interested in anyway.

Before you get started, you have to go through an on-line video course of about an hour. You then take a test of ten questions that are not live. They review your answers and then give you the thumbs up or down. If you flunk you can not re-take the test. Your out. Once you pass you go live, answering questions from all over.

Be aware, if you decide you want to get into this, you can be presented with questions of a sexual nature. (Things like "what causes herpes?") They do have a harassment policy which allows you to dump questions, but non aggressive, sexual questions of an informational nature, things you might ask a nurse, are considered good to go.

The company tries to create a fun-loving start up feel, and so far, (a few hours) it's been a good side gig.