In Response to Nikki Perry

Many opponents to this are arguing that it would “take away from the area of pristine beauty and change the region’s historic character.”  In my opinion the wind turbines would be slightly visible off the shores and not take away from the beauty of the ocean.  Even if they were more prominent in the view I would stand for them, if it meant lowering the use of fossil fuels.  I have heard many people say that wind turbines are ugly, recently there were 2 constructed at the community college in my hometown, and there was a lot of criticism.  I don’t understand how anyone could complain about how something looks when it is in fact providing energy and is overall good for the environment.  Would you criticize something because of how it looked?

I 100% agree with Nikki on the use of wind turbines. I think this is a resourceful thing thing, that the US should install these wind turbines in more places than we already have. A few years ago I went on vacation to California and saw wind turbines in-person for the first time. This is how lots of places in the beautiful state of California get their main source of energy. There are numerous large hills that are covered with them. I believe this is an ingenious way to save money and to lower the use of fossil fuels. In my hometown, Wrentham, MA, we have one wind turbine and it's great! It generates so much power. Personally, I don't understand why people think they are an eyesore; an added bonus is that they are pretty much silent when in operation. Another place that I have seen them in our area in on the drive to Sunapee Mountain.

I think wind turbines should be supported way more than they are currently. I don't buy in to them "ruining the view" or anything like that. Having these turbines would cut costs for many different things and could ultimately lower many citizen's costs on utilities in places that have wind turbines. Also, I think that they should go ahead with the wind farm off the coast of Nantucket. For those who disagree with it, they just need to see that there are many more positives that will come out of the wind farm than negatives.

Product Placement In Spears' New Video

Recently Britney Spears came out with a music video for her new single, "Hold It Against Me." Growing up with Britney Spears songs all over the radio and always being excited to see what she has in-store for her videos, I was anxious to see what she would do this time. Personally, I always like her music videos and her songs get stuck in my head easily; just like "Hold It Against Me" has been since I first heard it this past January. When I first saw her new video I was strangely disappointed. Besides it not being as creative and entertaining as her many other music videos, there was too much obvious and in-your-face advertisement for a few different products. Watch the "Hold It Against Me" music video below:

It has been reported by NYDailyNews.com, as well as other sites, that Spears received $500,000 for product placement in her video for "Hold It Against Me." Products that were featured were Sony, Radiance perfume, Make Up Forever cosmetics, and Plentyoffish.com. In Britney's new video it is hard to even notice anything else besides the overload of product placement. Each time one of these products is used in the music video the camera zooms in to show the brand label. It is so over done that at one point the Sony label takes up your entire television screen.

Do you think this is a good way for music artists to make money? There will always be product placement in music videos and movies but there are ways of doing it so that it doesn't bombard the viewer and is not obnoxious. What are some ways that product placement can be done more efficiently?