Seven Secret Places To Hide Cash In Your Home
July 15, 2009
Frugal Dad:
It’s a good idea to keep a little cash in your home for emergencies. How much you decide to keep is up to you, but I would suggest keeping enough cash on hand to pay for a week of groceries, and maybe a night or two in a hotel. Because this money will not be earning interest, and is subject to being stolen by a burglar, I don’t suggest keeping a huge stash in your home.
When you’ve settled on an amount you should think about secret hiding places to stash the cash. We’ve all seen those spy movies where the guy removes the tile from the back splash behind his stove and pulls out a cache of bills, passports and ammo. Well, the following ideas may not be worthy of James Bond, but they will improve the chances of your money surviving a break in.
Seven Secret Hiding Places for Your Cash
1. In the freezer wrapped in aluminum foil. Save a little styrofoam from the next pack of meat you buy and cut it down to the size of a couple large steaks. Put your cash in a Ziploc bag, stick it between two pieces of the used meat tray and wrap it in aluminum foil. Take a piece of masking tape and write “Scraps – 05/22/2005.” Robbers are not likely to look through the pack, and if they pull back the foil they’ll only see the familiar styrofoam tray and stop.
2. Sandwiched between the cardboard backing of a hard-to-reach picture frame. Most thieves pull back pictures from the wall to see if money is taped to the back, but they aren’t likely to take the time to look behind the glass, the cardboard backing and the picture itself. Use a pen knife to split the cardboard backing into two halves and sandwich the cash in between.
3. Under a piano, entertainment center or anything weighing a couple hundred pounds or more. If you have a hand truck around the house it’s pretty easy to just lift up the corner of a piano and slide an envelope under it. However, a burglar probably won’t be able to lift something this heavy, and would spend his time digging through the drawers or inside of the furniture rather than trying to lift it.
4. Inside a used can of soup. The next time you have soup, open the bottom of the can to empty the contents and the leave the top in tact. Rinse the can thoroughly, then use it to cover your stash of cash hidden inside your pantry. Stack a few cans of soup on top just to make it less convenient for someone to pick it up out of curiosity.
5. Buried in the “soil” of a fake plant. If you have a fake plant, or small tree, in your home, wrap your cash in a Ziploc bag and nest it inside the “soil” of the plant.
6. In hollowed out pages of a book on your book shelf. Using a pen knife or box cutter, carve out a few pages of your least favorite title. Hide your cash inside the book and return it to the book shelf.
7. Inside a kid’s toy hidden in their closet. Kid’s rooms are notoriously messy, and kids are not known for having large sums of money. Take apart an old plastic toy they no longer play with and hide your stash of cash in there. Return the toy to the bottom of the pile of toys in your kids closet, or toy chest, and it should be safe.
It’s important to remember that any cash saved at home could be lost in a fire or natural disaster. The ultimate hiding place is a fireproof safe bolted to the floor, and even that isn’t fool-proof. The ideal spot for storing large amounts of cash is an online savings account, far away from your house and any potential danger. But for the small amounts you stash at home, take the time to put it out of sight.
Also, remember to tell a spouse or close friend about the money in case you are not able to get to it (you die, or become injured or ill and cannot communicate). Keep enough cash on hand to cover you a few days in a major emergency, but not so much that you’d be completely wiped out if it all disappeared.
An on-line Wall Street Journal op-ed posted two days ago alleged that Human Rights Watch officials went trolling for dollars in Saudi Arabia, and that the organization’s senior Middle East official, Sarah Leah Whitson, attempted to extract money from potential Saudi donors by bragging about the group’s “battles” with the “pro-Israel pressure groups.”
This is a serious allegation, and one I found difficult to believe, because Human Rights Watch has always been moderately careful about the optics of its fundraising efforts. The group’s credibility, of course, rests on its neutrality; playing traditional enemies off each other as a way to collect money from one (or both) sides in a conflict seems beyond the pale. (Let’s put aside for now the queasy-making image of a human rights organization venturing into one of the world’s most anti-democratic societies to criticize one of the Middle East’s most democratic states.)
Another problem here, of course, is that Sarah Leah Whitson, if the allegation against her is to be believed, trafficked in a toxic stereotype about Jews in a country that bans most Jews from even crossing its borders, and whose religious leadership often propogates the crudest expressions of anti-Semitism. The term pro-Israel lobby, of course, means something very different on the Arabian peninsula than it does here. Here, even to critics of AIPAC, it means a well-funded, well-oiled political machine designed to protect Israel’s interests in Congress. In much of the Arab world, “pro-Israel pressure group” suggests a global conspiracy by Jews to dominate the world politically, culturally and economically.
I’m not one of the people who believes that Human Rights Watch is reflexively anti-Israel, and I think the group has done admirable work exposing Israel’s human rights violations (and admirable work, of course, exposing human rights violations across the Middle East). But this allegation, if proven true, would cast serious doubt on whether Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division could ever fairly judge Israel again.
The shenanigans cited by a California judge are typical of cases where U.S. ‘multinationals’ are shaken down by trial lawyers supported by populist, politicized foreign courts…
It is no secret that U.S. trial lawyers hear a siren’s song from the developing world in the form of massive claims brought against multinational corporations, which they drag into court as part of a lucrative crusade against globalization, exploitation, or some other alleged sin.
Last month the ugly truth behind several of these cases was exposed when a judge in California found that a Los Angeles trial lawyer conspired with others to fabricate evidence in three multi-million dollar civil suits accusing Dole Food Company and Dow Chemical of causing sterility among male banana plantation workers through the negligent use of now-banned pesticide “DBCP…”
According to L.A. Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney, Dominguez took his crusade to the extreme by concocting a “blatant extortion” against Dole and Dow. Aided and abetted by Nicaraguan judges, Dominguez and his team coached plaintiffs (many of whom never worked for Dole), doctored employment and medical records, and threatened witnesses and Dole’s defense team. Supposedly sterile fathers were even told to deny their paternity to keep up the ruse.
After seeing evidence of the fraud, Judge Chaney declared, “this court questions the authenticity and reliability of any documentary evidence presented by plaintiffs that comes out of Nicaragua . . . I can’t believe in government documents . . . I can’t believe the laboratory reports, I can’t believe medical reports.” She noted that these misdeeds cast a doubt on all DBCP claims pending in Nicaraguan and U.S. courts—including a $1.6 million judgment that Chaney herself blessed 18 months ago, before Dominguez’s scheming came to light.
The shenanigans cited by Judge Chaney are typical of cases where U.S. “multinationals” are shaken down by trial lawyers supported by populist, politicized foreign courts. Another example is the ongoing case in Ecuador, where indigenous groups supported by the government are suing Chevron-Texaco for $16 billion in environmental and health damages; the U.S. firm questions the evidence and contends that any blame rests with the prime operator, the inept Petroecuador.
Sigmund, Carl And Alfred Are Back In The Saddle
July 15, 2009
From the author of SC&A.
Last night, the Sigmund, Carl and Alfred blog was suspended by WordPress for a ‘violation of the terms of service’ as a result of a complaint.
I have contacted WordPress and we will have further discussion on the matter.
For the better part of 5 years, the SC&A blog has posted mostly original works and commentary. Over the last eight or nine months, a heavy workload has precluded us from doing the same. As a result, we post articles and cartoons that we believe our readers will enjoy and appreciate.
In posting other works, we have complied with fair use rules. We derive no profit from the distribution- in fact, the SC&A blog has never had any ads. The cartoons were published in their entirety and no signatures or identifying marks were ever removed or obscured.
With few exceptions, our readers do not need inane, shallow or obvious commentary. Over the years, the SC&A has been blessed with readers who are intelligent, insightful and cogent thinkers. For that we are grateful.
I have been fortunate to associate and work with some of the best psych bloggers in the business- Dr Sanity, Neo-neocon and Shrinkwrapped are some examples. I have been privileged to have been in their orbit
As of late to find ourselves the focus of a rather obsessive individual. This particular tribute to mediocrity (on a good day) has maligned me and my efforts, past and present on this blog and elsewhere.
Last night, I published a rather dull post.
The following are the verbatim comments that were left. I initiated no exchange with the commenter and in fact, I had been avoiding any real communication.
I have published comments these so as to make clear the nature of what has transpired. Readers can extrapolate for themselves.
“I could not possibly have written something as tired and cliche as that, even if I had tried my very best. Congratulations!
So most of the time you happily take credit for others’ work, and every once in a while you put out a masterpiece of banality like this? Is that how it works here?”
You wouldn’t know how to put out an “original work” if your life depended on it. Everything you have written is devoid of substance and true inspiration; your posts are mere attempts to impress other losers with silly sophistry. Why would I share anything I’ve written with you; you’d be likely to proudly post my words as your own.
(“Screw The Left”! How positively unique and memorable!)
Oh my goodness, published by Pajamas Media! I am surely dealing with a real heavyweight now! Faulkner and Hemingway have been eclipsed! War and Peace, Pride and Prejudice, even the Bible itself–none compare to your renowned body of work, sir!
Sadly, your pathetic attempts at insulting me will always be ineffective, as I don’t share your compulsion to pretend to be really smart on the Internet. You’re not stupid, though–certainly intelligent enough to understand the truth of what I’m saying. Some people really do feel sorry for you, because of your pitiful narcissism and neverending miserable attempts at validation. I don’t feel sorry for you though, because I think you’re an assclown .
It was at that point that I noted my commenter was ‘projecting’. I had not initiated these exchanges- only responded to them. I informed him that I would no longer publish his comments.
I asked my commenter to consider his own words with a look in the mirror:
Sadly, your pathetic attempts at insulting me will always be ineffective, as I don’t share your compulsion to pretend to be really smart on the Internet. You’re not stupid, though–certainly intelligent enough to understand the truth of what I’m saying. Some people really do feel sorry for you, because of your pitiful narcissism and neverending miserable attempts at validation. I don’t feel sorry for you though, because I think you’re an assclown .
There was one other vitriolic remark left, in which my commenter ’suggested’ I remove all his remarks. I chose to leave things stand as they were.
As of now and as the result of a single complaint, the Sigmund Carl and Alfred blog has been suspended.
