Sunday, March 22, 2015

Wall Space - ReStore Art

Hi, friends and family. To kick off my spring break, I thought I would share a project I did almost a year ago. Yep, catching you right up on the action around here.

Do any of you have design differences with your spouse? Well, Paul and I usually have different ideas about what we want around us. I tend toward a minimalist/rustic/natural aesthetic and Paul likes a traditional feel to furnishings. Needless to say, our home is a compromise.

The walls in our living room were bare for the first year and half after we moved in. I wasn't in a hurry to fill them (minimalist, remember?), but when Paul and I stumbled across these images at our local ReStore, we decided to go for it.


We bought five prints - four small and one large (only the four smaller prints are featured in this post). To me, they look very traditional. Paul loved that about them. The outdoor scenes give them a natural component. More importantly, they have horses in them. I've been horse crazy since I was a kid. I've learned to reign in the obsession, but it's still there.

I've even started riding again, which makes me feel like I'm thirteen.



The frames were in terrible condition. Maybe a dog chewed on them? I bought some wax crayons to try to fill in the scratches, but I did it in haste and in a who-cares-anything-will-look-better-than-this approach. Next, I covered the glass and sprayed the frames with this stuff.


I don't think of myself as liking "glamour," but there's something about this gold finish that makes me smile. Who would guess that underneath is cheap wood laminate all scratched to pieces?




One wall isn't empty anymore. Sometimes compromise works out better than I expected.


Saturday, February 7, 2015

Elgin Architectural Rehabilitation Grant

Paul and I bought our house knowing it needed major work. The most pressing concern was a roof with - I kid you not - seven layers of shingles. Combine an ancient roof with non-working gutters and you get a rotten porch. Here's the original version.


Our neighbor happens to be in the business of restoring old houses. His house is absolutely perfect - which makes ours look even a bit more dilapidated. We had talked to him about our plans to fix up the exterior, and he encouraged us to apply for a 50/50 grant through the City of Elgin. We filled out the paperwork back in 2013, got several quotes (including one from our neighbor) and submitted our proposal - new roof, new porch and gutters. Total cost = $40,000.00

We learned at the end of 2013 that our house had "ranked." I don't know all the details, but my understanding is that the grant committee reviews all the submissions and applies a ranking system to determine which houses are most in need of the grant money. This my friends, is a picture of one of those winners.  


Now there are conditions on the 50/50 grant money. The first - and most important - is that the homeowner pays all the money up front. Ouch! Once we found out we were awarded a grant, we had to start another round of paperwork to get a loan for the repairs. The second - and which later became a big deal - is that your exterior must be code compliant before any funds will be released. More on that for another post.

I didn't do a good job taking progress photos. Paul and Edy painted the front of the house after our neighbor had already ripped off the old porch and re-built the base. You can see the new gutters along the roof-line of the porch. The railing hasn't been installed yet at this stage. The first picture is the patched and primed version.










Now look down. The last photo is the finished porch.

Isn't it pretty? Notice the tiny pieces of wood at the top of the beam painted the amber color? That's an architectural detail called dental. I'm guessing it got that name because it looks like teeth. Watching Paul and Edy prep, paint and install those teeth reminded me how fussy Victorian architecture is. It's eye-catching, but oh, so labor-intensive. Also, please admire the beautiful railing that our neighbor created, painted and installed.


The ground is frozen and covered in snow right now. It's refreshing to look back on these summer photos and think about enjoying this new porch in a few more months.

Some have asked about the painting plans for the rest of the house. The plan is to eliminate the pink at the top and finish the house out in this paint color scheme. For now, only the lower front of the house is "finished." We've had some issues with the paint bubbling - so we might end up having to re-do the painting. But I'm not going to think about that right now. Instead, I'm going to look at this photo and think about summer. 

Monday, February 2, 2015

Unfinished Spaces

A friend recently asked me how the house was coming along. A fair question since it has a long way to go. Winter is the perfect time to work on indoor projects. But projects require time and money, neither of which we have lots of at the moment. We have several large indoor projects to do. Two spaces in our home have been completely gutted. We tore them out almost as soon as we moved in.

The first space is the attic. It was knob and tubing electric, so Paul and his dad worked on updating that. Paul  put the sawzall to work and found a tiny alcove at the top of the stairs that used to be hidden behind a wall. Perhaps a future reading nook? That's always my first thought for any space. That?! That space would be perfect for - reading! Then I explain where the bookcase needs to go and what kind of comfy seating I'm envisioning. I want to live in a library. That's my vision of home.  



This is Paul's dad. When I say there is no one else like him, I mean it on many, many levels. He has a sense of humor all his own, loves to talk - about anything and everything, has the strongest work ethic imaginable, and is happiest working on a project and drinking a beer. We have what it takes to keep him happy. And it makes us happy to have his help. 

The second gutted space is the upstairs bathroom. When we purchased the home, it was already quite ripped up. Paul and his dad just finished the job. I've been dreaming up floor plans for that space ever since. 

To show you how long the bathroom has been sitting in its naked, bare-boned state, take a look at this picture of Caleb and Butch. We took this picture the weekend the bathroom was demoed. Baby cheeks! Entering into years now. That's how long it has been, almost two years. 



Why have we left it looking like this? How can we manage without a second bathroom? I know, I ask myself that question occasionally too. We borrowed money to do the major repairs - which I don't think I've blogged about yet - and while to some people, this may qualify as a major repair - there were others that were more pressing. You may not know this about me, but I am so anti-debt it borders the land of insanity. Taking out the mortgage for the big project was a major step outside of my comfort zone, so knowing that these projects can wait until we save up cash to pay for them the old fashion way actually makes me happy, not stressed. 

No amount of glistening subway tile and new fixtures would make me feel happy about paying interest on money that I spent that I didn't have. So until then, things inside are going to keep looking like this.


Sunday, January 18, 2015

Christmas Up North

For the friends I met during my college years in the South, Christmas up north meant coming home to Elgin, Illinois. I still do Christmas up north now that I live in Elgin again, only now up north means Cedarville, Michigan - just a short drive from the international bridge to Canada.

Caleb's latest obsession is geography. He's memorized all of the U.S. states and their capitals and is moving on to world geography. "Mom, did you know that Burkina Faso is next to Niger?" What starts these obsessions? Youtube. Here are the two I've heard a million times.



But I digress, the connection I was going to make was that traveling for long distances in a car with a three year old is greatly improved when that child has an obsession with geography. During our drive north, Caleb literally watched the GPS for seven hours straight, making comments about various city names and rivers. When we reached the Mackinaw bridge, "Hey, I see Lake Michigan on one side and Lake Huron on the other!"

We had a great time visiting family in Cedarville. Paul's younger sister and her family moved back to the area last year, joining his older sister and her family, so going to Michigan = cousin time. Caleb had fun running around with the girls. They were very sweet to him - even when he was running in circles naming African countries. Oh, to raise such gracious children.





We brought friends with us this trip - our housemate for the past year and his almost 13 year old daughter. The Christmas tradition up north includes a Christmas Eve gathering with extended family at Paul's cousin's house. He and his precious wife opened up their home to a very large extended family. The spread of food was amazing. Beverly is quite the hostess. She's one of those people who makes food look beautiful. She even had goody bags for each of the little kids, which kept them busy while the adults chatted, ate, and drank (I mean, it was a Haske gathering after all).




Christmas morning was an intimate event as we opted to have Christmas morning with our little immediate family. The young ones opened gifts and we made breakfast together.



Then it was off to Aunt Dani's to hang out with cousins.



Our trip was a great blend of visiting and relaxing. This place has a special place in my heart.



It's the hunting camp where we stayed. My father-in-law even brought the four-wheelers out so we could zoom around the woods. It was beautiful. As beautiful as the north woods are in the fall, I almost like them best in the winter. Snow-laden trees, protection from the wind, and absolute silence.






Going north for us northerners will always mean going to Cedarville, Michigan. It's a place I've come to love - like the rest of my family.

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Birthday Reveal

I had quite a few requests to find out what was in the box. It was this beautiful, made-in-America sweatshirt from American Giant (aka "the greatest hoodie ever made").

It's the most flattering hoodie I have worn. This means I will feel less guilty about wearing it every single day this winter. I'll just pop the cute little hood over my unwashed hair and carry on like I'm a super model. 

Also, I would never in a million years have purchased a sweatshirt that costs $89.00. This is why my husband has to wait for special occasions to buy me nice things. My only non-clearance, non-goodwill, non-borrowed-from-a-friend clothes have been gifts.



But that wasn't all. He bought me a new dyson. The one we got as a wedding gift was barely alive and we had been talking about trading her in. The attachment tube ripped, so we could only use it for vacuuming the floor. That just doesn't cut it with an old, dusty house.

Ahem, you may be thinking that a gift like a dyson is too practical or perhaps too sexist? Would it change your thinking to know that my husband cleaned the house top-to-bottom as a hint at the gift. What if I told you that he is the primary house cleaner in our relationship. What do you think now? Not a bad gift, eh? 

Thanks for all the birthday wishes! 

Psalm 90:12 - "Teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom."


Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Birthdays

November is my birthday month. If you're wondering why I'm thinking about it already (I mean, what am I, 5 years old?) it's because my husband is really fun.



For the last few years, he has purchased my birthday present months in advance. Then he gives me a certain number of guesses per week. Last year he even gave me a few hints, but I had no idea what was in store.

A ping-pong table!



For those of you who don't know me and my family, tennis is a big part of our lives. When I was a little girl, we played tennis through the cold Chicago winters at a local club or in the high school gym. With a full-time job, a family of my own, and a needy, old house, winters mean a break from tennis. While ping-pong doesn't replace my love of tennis, it sure helps me get through the colder months.



The reveal of my birthday present was especially creative. Paul cleared out our living room, started a roaring fire in the fireplace, and brought the ping-pong table into the main space of our house. We cranked the music, ate snackies, and rotated through ping-pong matches. It was a blast.

Now the ping-pong table has a room of its own in the basement. It's not nearly as glamorous as the living room, but thanks to my birthday gift, it is a well-loved space in the house.



Are you curious about this year's birthday present? Me too! It's wrapped and sitting on top of our kitchen cabinets. Paul gives me three guesses a week - no luck so far. Guess I'll have to wait until November.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Hobby Lobby Case Brief

I usually use this blog to update family and friends about our daily life and show cute pictures of Caleb. I'm going to depart into the land of law with this post. The departure may seem wholly unrelated to domestic life, but when two lawyers get married, discussions of law and politics are a regular part of our day-to-day happenings. I still don't want to disappoint the grandmas in our lives, so here is a recent picture of our cutie pie before I jump into the law.


One of the skills my students learn in the paralegal intro class I teach is how to brief a case. Case briefing is basically an exercise in legal reading comprehension and efficient writing. We usually brief Illinois appellate court decisions in class since they're relevant to my student in a jurisdictional sense and tend to be more manageable in length. I never assign U.S. Supreme Court cases. They're super interesting, but also 50-120 pages long, especially if you're going to read concurring and dissenting opinions as well as the majority decision. This is the same reason most people don't go to the primary source. It's much easier to have someone else tell you about it.


With all the press the recent Hobby Lobby case has received with varying reactions, I decided to read it myself. If I am going to read it, I might as well brief it. If I am going to brief it, I might as well share it.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No.  13-354 (June 30, 2014). 

Facts: Hobby Lobby (and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp.) challenged the government's requirement to provide certain contraceptives through employer-provided group health insurance plans. The United States Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") created the regulation under the authority given by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (aka "Obamacare"). HHS exempted certain organizations from providing any sort of birth control for religious reasons; in particular, religious institutions and qualified non-profit organizations. No religious exemption was included for corporations; a conscious objection exemption was considered by Congress for corporations, but ultimately rejected. Hobby Lobby objected to four specific forms of birth control that allow fertilization of a woman's egg, but not implantation in the woman's uterus. It did not object to birth control methods that prevented fertilization. Hobby Lobby argued that as a private, closely-held, for-profit corporation, the requirement to provide these four "abortifacients" violated its (the corporation's) rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA").      

Issue: Do the religious protections in RFRA extend to private, closely-held, for-profit corporations and if so, does the government's contraceptive requirement for employer-provided group health insurance plans violate RFRA?

Holding: Yes. RFRA applies to private, closely-held, for-profit corporations because Congress designed those protections to be interpreted broadly, and, yes, the government's contraceptive requirement does violate RFRA because it is not the least restrictive means of serving the government's compelling interest.

Reasoning: The majority opinion tackles RFRA's application to corporations as a necessary first step in its analysis. The government argued that by choosing to incorporate their business, the Hobby Lobby family forfeited the protections of RFRA, which were designed for individuals. The majority looks at congressional intent to resolve the issue. RFRA was created to broaden religious freedoms for people beyond what the Court had articulated in prior case law. Additionally, Congress included corporations in its definition of "persons" under RFRA by not specifically excluding them. There's a statute that provides definitions for federal laws that don't otherwise specifically define terms (it's called the Dictionary Act). Under its definition "person" includes corporations. If Congress wanted to exclude for-profit structures, it would have specifically defined "person" to not include corporations. Since it didn't, RFRA applies.

The government also argued that Hobby Lobby could not "exercise religion" as a corporation because its primary purpose in existing is to make money. The majority disagreed and points to prior decisions where religious protections were provided to businesses (sole proprietors). It also points out that money-making is not the sole reason for running a business as recognized by state laws which allow corporations to be formed for "any lawful purpose." Furthermore, RFRA itself says that its provisions "shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise." For-profit corporations can "exercise religion" as defined by RFRA.

Once the statute's application was decided, the government's contraceptive requirement came under scrutiny. The majority applied the legal standard as written in RFRA, which prohibits the federal government from making laws or regulations that substantially burden the exercise of religion unless it is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest. The Court concluded that the regulation was substantially burdensome ($475 million a year in penalties for non-compliance) and presumed that providing contraceptive care to employees was a compelling government interest. This left only one remaining issue: was the regulation the least restrictive means of serving that compelling government interest?

The Court determined that it was not the least restrictive means of providing contraceptive coverage through employer-provided plans. Most persuasive to the Court was the fact that HHS had already created a strategy that would allow religious institutions and qualified non-profit organizations to provide group health insurance without having to pay for contraceptives, but still provide employees with access to contraceptives at the same cost as if they had been covered by the plan. If it works for non-profits and religious institutions, it can work for closely-help, for-profit corporations too. Thus, the regulation is not the least restrictive means of achieving the compelling government interest and, therefore, violates the protections as set forth in RFRA.

Concurring (Kennedy): Justice Kennedy adds a few remarks to make it clear that providing contraceptive coverage is indeed a compelling government interest and to reinforce that the exercise of religion includes "the right to express those beliefs and to establish one's religious (or nonreligious) self-definition in the political, civic, and economic life of our large community."

Dissent (Ginsburg): Three other justices joined Ginsburg's dissent, including: Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan, with Kagan and Breyer opting out of the final section of her dissent. Like the majority, Ginsburg looks at the two main issues, whether the RFRA applies to a for-profit corporation and whether the government's contraceptive requirement violates RFRA.

The dissent points out that if Hobby Lobby had tried to bring a First Amendment case (which it did not),it would have lost. The First Amendment is not violated when the government's law or regulation is neutral (not designed to restrict exercise of religion) and generally applicable (like paying your taxes or making drugs illegal). Furthermore, individuals are not afforded constitutional protection to "exercise their religion" when their exercising significantly impinges the rights of third parties.

The dissent disagrees with the Court's use of the Dictionary Act because the Act specifically states that it only applies if the meaning is not ascertainable from the context. The context makes it clear that "persons" as used in RFRA does not include for-profit corporations because for-profit corporations have never, not once, been recognized as having free exercise rights under the First Amendment.

RFRA should not apply to for-profit corporations. Assuming that it does, the corporations have not made a showing that the burden on their exercise of religion is substantial because the connection between providing coverage of these particular types of contraceptives through health insurance companies to independent decision-makers (the employees) is too attenuated to be considered substantial.

Finally, the least restrictive means is met, and the regulation should be upheld over the religious objection. The dissent argues that the majority's answer of the government shouldering the cost is not a viable least restrictive means because it leads to a slippery slope of religious objections from corporations. There is no least restrictive means available to for-profit corporations, an entity not equivalent to a religious non-profit organization.