One Direction: How to enrage a fan in 5 easy steps

They’re young, they tweet, and man, are they protective of their boys.

One Direction fans are a passionate bunch. So if you happen to find yourself standing in line for One Direction: This Is Us, there are a few things you need to know. Here are five things that will really get the fans fuming:

1. Debate “Larry” vs. “Elounor”
The first thing you need to know about Directioners is that they’re divided into two camps. There are “Larry” shippers, who believe bandmates Louis Tomlinson and Harry Styles are in a secret romantic relationship that’s being covered up by their handlers (fans claim that Modest! Management won’t let them be photographed without the rest of the boys anymore), and there are “Elounor” shippers, who trust that Tomlinson’s real-life relationship with University of Manchester student Eleanor Calder, is, in fact, real. Engage either side about the validity of Larry and you’re asking for a heated diatribe—or a series of terrifying “I will cut you” tweets. As you’ll learn, the boys’ love lives are not your business… unless, of course, you’re sure that Louis and Harry are depending on you to expose their secret relationship to the world so they can finally be happy.

2. Say You Love Justin Bieber
The second thing you need to know is that Directioners don’t like Beliebers. The conflict began (where else?) on Twitter. “The Beliebers trended #HitDirectionersWithAShovelDay” for no reason explains Holly, a 16-year-old 1D fan from Chicago. She says the war has raged on ever since. “When they won at the TCAs instead of Justin Beiber, they started making fun of Harry’s acne. They’re just trying to make us angry.” DIrectioners haven’t forgotten about the trend, either. The hashtag is still being talked about today:

OMG AND DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN TH BELIEBERS STARTED #hitdirectionerswithashovelday BECAUSE I DO—
JC BE MY 1/6 (@itscaylenscloud) August 30, 2013

3. Cast the Boys in a Bad Light
Journalists, don’t you dare say the wrong thing about any of the lads. Or even imply anything untoward. For its September issue, British GQ ran five individual One Direction covers, each with a quippy line. Harry’s cover implied he’d slept with almost 100 women and included the line, “He’s up all night to get lucky.” Fans went berserk. Twitter responses ranged from, “YOU ARE NOT A GOD DAMN MAN WHORE, YOU ARE A CUPCAKE” to “CAN I PLEASE STAB EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO WORKS FOR GQ,” to stuff we can’t print here. Suffice it to say there was a lot of caps lock involved.

(Side Note: I’ve experienced this rage firsthand. When I wrote a negative article about “Little Things” in November, I got hundreds of tweets from livid Directioners. My favorite read, “The guy that wrote this is 23, ugly as f–k, and sounds like he needs someone to play with his ‘Little Things.’” I’ve gotta admit — that one was pretty good.)

4. Be A “Carrot”
The biggest slam in the One Direction community is to be called that beta-carotene bomb. The cut’s history traces back to 2010, when the boys were competing on The X-Factor in the U.K. Louis jokingly remarked, “I like girls who eat carrots,” and suddenly every teenage girl in Britain began proclaiming her love of carrots. Three years later, though, the joke is soooo passé. If that’s the only thing you know about the boys, then you aren’t a real fan. Calling someone a “carrot” essentially means, “You’re an idiot.” Need to hear it context? Take it away, Holly: “Some people, like, say, ‘I eat carrots’ because, like, Louis said he likes girls who eat carrots, and he says he doesn’t like carrots anymore, and that joke isn’t funny. So, like, when people use that joke still, they are a carrot.”

5. Practice Monotheistic Harry Worship
Look, you may know him as the one who dated Taylor Swift (“dated” Taylor Swift, if you’re talking to a Larry shipper), or the one who kind of looks like a young Mick Jagger, or the one with the flowiest hair, but dammit, Harry Styles is not the only member of One Direction! If you fail to mention Liam’s charity work, or Zayn’s engagement, or Louis’ ever-growing arsenal of tattoos, or Niall’s Irish accent, then you know what you are? You’re nothing but a carrot. Or even worse: an adult.

So there you have it: five things to avoid doing (or purposely do, you sadists!) to the One DIrection fan in your life. I’m going to go crawl under a rock now and avoid the avalanche of hate-tweets and snack packs coming my way. Though I do promise you, Directioners: I really am a fan!

Handbags reviews and advice for best reference

Appeals court weighs next steps in BofA mortgage deal (Reuters)

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Legal wrangling over the proposed $8.5 billion settlement of some of Bank of America Corp's (BAC.N) mortgage-backed securities liability could drag through the courts for years, a top appeals court judge said during arguments in the case.

The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in New York is weighing whether last June's Bank of America accord, which has been closely watched by other banks and bondholders, is a matter for federal court review or belongs in state court where it was first filed.

The settlement was intended to help Bank of America address much of its remaining legal liability from its ill-fated 2008 purchase of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial Corp. But some investors have challenged the deal, saying the payout is too low and want it to get more scrutiny from a federal judge.

Regardless of what the appeals court decides, the case "could come back to us," Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs said on Wednesday.

Jacobs and two other appeals judges did not indicate how they would rule.

Robert Madden, a lawyer for about two dozen institutional investors with tens billions of dollars at stake in the settlement, said at the hearing the matter could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The investors he represents, including BlackRock Inc (BLK.N) and Allianz SE's (ALVG.DE) Pimco, believe the settlement should be returned to state court, as does Bank of America and trustee Bank of New York Mellon Corp (BK.N).

Madden told the three-judge panel that more litigation surrounding the settlement could lead to the federal judge's work turning out "to be a waste of time."

The Bank of America pact was intended to address claims by investors who said the seemingly safe securities they bought proved toxic because they were backed by risky home loans based on faulty underwriting practices.

The agreement, which applied to 530 mortgage securitization trusts with $174 billion of unpaid principal, was seen as a template for other banks facing mortgage-backed securities breach-of-contract claims.

The same law firm that negotiated the Bank of America pact for institutional investors, Gibbs & Bruns, has also sent demands for an investigation to trustees overseeing mortgage securities sponsored by JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), Morgan Stanley (MS.N) and Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N). If the settlement remains tied up in court, it could potentially also delay resolution of similar claims against other banks.

Initially, the Bank of America settlement was sent to a New York State Supreme Court judge in Manhattan to review. It was in state court that the parties used a New York trust law known as Article 77 that is normally reserved for resolving family trust issues.

But the agreement drew criticism from investors, including a group known as Walnut Place LLC, who were not part of the talks, but would be bound by the settlement terms. They complained the $8.5 billion payout was too low and wanted the case moved to federal court for more review. Walnut Place is the hedge fund Baupost Group, according to court documents.

In October, U.S. District Judge William Pauley ruled that the proposed settlement belonged in his court, citing "core federal interests" in the integrity of banks and securities markets.

Jacobs indicated on Wednesday that, even if the appeals panel affirmed Pauley's decision and he eventually signed off on a settlement in federal court, the litigation would not end there.

Appeals court Judges Peter Hall and Raymond Lohier were also on Wednesday's panel. Hall focused on arguments by Walnut Place that the accord was a "mass action" involving hundreds of trusts.

"I don't even see it as a mass action because it didn't start out as such," Hall said during the one-hour long hearing, referring to the case's introduction in state court as a settlement rather than a lawsuit on behalf of a class of plaintiffs.

The case is Bank of New York Mellon v. Walnut Place LLC et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-4571.

(Reporting By Grant McCool and Alison Frankel; Editing by Martha Graybow and Andre Grenon)

Amazon Cell Phone Center

DOJ steps up ratings probe: report (Reuters)

(Reuters) – The Justice Department has stepped up its investigation of Standard & Poor's mortgage bond ratings during the financial crisis, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.

At least five former S&P analysts have been contacted by federal prosecutors in recent weeks, after some had not heard from investigators for more than six months, the newspaper said.

The McGraw-Hill Cos Inc unit disclosed in September it had received a Wells notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission indicating it could face civil charges for its ratings of a 2007 mortgage bond deal called Delphinus 2007-1.

It has not yet disclosed any investigation by the DOJ, which the WSJ reported is a civil probe.

Prosecutors are examining whether S&P managers pushed to weaken standards the company had set for rating the mortgage deals, and whether the company followed its established criteria in assigning ratings.

The recent interviews lasted two to three hours, and the former employees were told they would likely by contacted again, the Wall Street Journal said.

A spokesman for S&P declined comment.

(Reporting By Aruna Viswanatha; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick)

Browse your computer here

Balance the Budget Deficit in 3 Easy Steps (The Motley Fool)

No one in Washington can agree on how to narrow the budget deficit. Not even balance. Just narrow.

The debate over next year's budget alone has been ongoing for months. Progress is obnoxiously difficult. One person wants this, another calls it sacred and says cut that, any number of think tanks say both are wrong, and Paul Krugman thinks everyone's a moron.

Tough problems, these. But as Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-B - News) quote machine Charlie Munger said recently, "It's amusing to see someone spend 1 million man-hours on something I can solve with my left hand."

With only partial seriousness, I'm going to do just that, balancing next year's $1.1 trillion budget deficit in three easy steps.

Step one: Return real (inflation-adjusted) defense spending to average 1990s levels
Current projections show $738 billion will go toward defense spending in 2012. That's one-fifth of all federal spending, and more than twice as much as goes toward the Department of Education, veterans benefits, the Department of Justice, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Agriculture combined.

It wasn't always this way. Adjusted for inflation, an average of $373 billion was spent on defense annually between 1994 and 2000. Reverting to similar levels would cut $365 billion from next year's budget.

Now our deficit's down to $735 billion. Where to next?

Step two: Return tax revenue as a percentage of GDP to average 1980s levels
Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is now just 14.4% -- a fifth below the long-term average, and the lowest level since World War II.

Returning that figure to the 18.3% average seen in the 1980s would draw in $585 billion in additional tax revenue. In fact, you don't even need to go back to the 1980s. Just returning to 2007 levels would mean collecting more than half a trillion dollars more than we do today.

Now our deficit's down to $150 billion. Progress! What next?

Step three: Rationalize Medicare
I'll let former White House budget director Peter Orszag do the talking here:

"Researchers have estimated that nearly 30 percent of Medicare's costs could be saved without negatively affecting health outcomes if spending in high- and medium-cost areas could be reduced to the level in low-cost areas -- and those estimates could probably be extrapolated to the health care system as a whole. With health care spending currently representing 16 percent of GDP, that estimate would suggest that nearly 5 percent of GDP -- or roughly $700 billion each year -- goes to health care spending that cannot be shown to improve health outcomes."

Medicare's 2012 outlays are projected to be $492 billion. Saving "nearly 30 percent," as Orszag suggests could occur without affecting health outcomes, cuts $150 billion from federal spending.

And now the budget's balanced.

Cause and effect
Again, I write this with only half a straight face. It may not be feasible to gut defense spending amid two wars -- and contractors like Boeing (NYSE: BA - News) and Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT - News) pay taxes, so cutting $1 lowers the deficit by a smaller amount. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has fallen so far largely because unemployment is so high. Making the health care system more efficient is the epitome of the phrase "easier said than done." There are also nonmonetary factors. Is the world safe enough to gut the defense budget? It's a question number-crunchers can't answer. I'm not directly advocating any of this.

Still, these exercises drive home an excellent point New York Times columnist David Leonhardt made last month. I've used this quote before, but its importance bears its repeating:

"Eventually, the country will have to confront the deficit we have, rather than the deficit we imagine. The one we imagine is a deficit caused by waste, fraud, abuse, foreign aid, oil industry subsidies and vague out-of-control spending. The one we have is caused by the world's highest health costs (by far), the world's largest military (by far), a Social Security program built when most people died by 70 -- and to pay for it all, the lowest tax rates in decades."

Willie Sutton robbed banks "because that's where the money is." Those wrestling over how to attack the deficit would be wise to think the same way.

Check back every Tuesday and Friday for Morgan Housel's columns on finance and economics.

Fool contributor TMFHousel. The Motley Fool owns shares of Lockheed Martin. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Browse your computer here