URL to article:

I had a conversation recently with someone who was quite upset about how much money pharmaceutical companies spend on CEO compensation — at a time when many people are not able to afford necessary medicines.

While I do not support restricting or limiting compensation, I also often scratch my head and ask, “Does it really make sense for a corporation to give someone tens of millions a year to run a company?” Beyond a certain point, there’s no useful way to spend the extra money. Someone who gets $30,000,000 in a year is grossing more than $82,000 per day, or $575,342 per week. How many steaks can you eat, how many vacations can you take, how many homes can you occupy, how many Ferraris can you drive?

Still, I thought it would be interesting to see how much pharmaceutical makers are spending on CEO compensation, and if this might be a factor in the costs of lifesaving pharmaceuticals. Forbes keeps track [1] of the top 400 CEO compensation packages for American corporations. Pharmaceutical company CEOs are NOT unusually highly paid. There are a few pharmaceutical CEOs in the top 100, but only a few. By comparison, other sectors, such as health care, communications, entertainment, consumer products, and stuff of questionable actual value [2], are more common in the top 100 list. UnitedHealth Group’s CEO is the top: $101,960,000 [3].

When I started digging into the details of these compensation packages, however, I noticed something very interesting, of which David E. I. Pyott of Allergan (a drug company) [4] is pretty typical: The vast majority of the compensation is stock gains, not salary or bonuses. Of Pyott’s $33.76 million compensation, $30.64 million was stock gains — not salary, bonuses, or other forms of direct compensation. In practice, this means that what the company actually wrote him checks for was about $3 million; the rest is the result of stock option grants.

ANDREW MCCARTHY: OBAMACARE IN COURT….JUDICIAL REPEAL IS GOOD…POLITICAL REPEAL IS BETTER Monday’s announcement that the Supreme Court will consider constitutional challenges to Obamacare has been met with hurrahs on the right. Count me a skeptic. And that’s not only, or even primarily, due to uncertainty about how the justices will rule. Big Government’s attempt to usurp control of the health-care sector, and all the control […]

BRUCE BAWER: FACING THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM A few years back I was invited to give the keynote address at a one-day conference in Washington – or, actually, in Arlington – about the future of Europe.  I am still baffled as to why I was invited.  Pretty much all the other people there – the audience members as well as the […]


Using the ‘Arab Uprisings’ to Bash America and Israel Posted By Judith Greblya URL to article: On Thursday November 10, 2011, approximately sixty people gathered for a lecture hosted by the University of California, Los Angeles’s Center for Near Eastern Studies. The event was titled, “Take Stock: The Arab Uprising on the Eve of […]

BEN SHAPIRO; THE FUZZY MATH OF 1 VS 99% President Obama came to office on a promise of unifying America. He still likes to pretend that he’s interested in the fate of all Americans. In late October, while travelling on his “non-campaign” bus campaign for re-election, he said, A number of people have been asking during the course of this road trip, “Why […]

FRANK SALVATO: POLITICAL BAGGAGE…ESTABLISHMENT AND MEDIA MANIPULATION As the 2012 Election primary seasons begins to ratchet-up, we had all better get ready for a onslaught of talk about “political baggage.” Whether it’s Mitt Romney’s “Louis Vuitton baggage” of having hired illegal aliens to manicure his lawn or Rick Perry’s “Cabela baggage” of having not painted over a racial epitaph on a […]

AMIL IMANI; THE FRAUD OF ISLAM From the primitive land of the Arabian Peninsula of over 14 centuries ago rose Muhammad, an illiterate hired hand of a rich widow Khadija, claiming he was the bearer of a perfect life prescription from God—the Quran. He claimed humanity could do no better than to follow its precepts as well as to emulate […]


   VIDEO: Maxine Waters on Deaths and Crimes at Occupy Protests: ‘That’s Life and It Happens’ 2. VIDEO: DISGRACE! ‘Forced Unionization': SEIU Collects Union Dues From Disabled Kids’ Medicaid Checks 3. SHOCK VIDEO: NBC ‘Today’ Panel Agrees: ‘Shame on People’ Who Object to Porn Star Reading to Young Children […]


Very Little to Debate at ‘Human Rights in Islam’ Discussion Posted By Hege Storhaug

It is impossible for me to provide a complete account of the debate on “Human Rights in Islam: Just or Unjust?” that was held under the auspices of IslamNet, Norway’s largest Islamic organization, on November 7, 2011. The “ideas” that were presented were utterly lacking in logic or intelligence, and the whole thing raced by very fast. It was almost impossible to keep up with it all: claims were made at a tempo out of another world, and were absolutely without substance. It was far more a revival meeting than a debate.

They delightedly applauded the chopping off of hands and feet. And they didn’t raise an eyebrow when executions committed by family agreement were defended as a reasonable ”human right in Islam.”

You would be forgiven for thinking that we were in deepest Saudi Arabia, or in a long-ago century. Far from it. We were in an auditorium at Oslo University College, where our future was being hatched onstage. The place was packed, and the great majority of the young students were wearing clothes that identifed themselves as followers of the Prophet.

The website reported prior to the “debate” that the participants were sharia expert Fadel Soliman, Lars Gule, and myself, and that Gule would withdraw from the event if IslamNet separated the audience members by sex. But they did. The young women used one entrance to the auditorium, the young men another. The auditorium consisted of four sitting areas. The areas in the back were entirely separated by sex, while one of the areas in the middle contained members of both sexes — though not in the same rows. The sexual separation “just happened — entirely naturally.”


If at any given time in our nation’s history the American people had embraced a philosophy as retarding as that espoused by the green movement, our progress would have halted. Indeed, that’s what’s happening now. The cheapest, most efficient means of production is no longer our national standard. Those hardest hit are the poorest of the poor who depend upon cheap, bountiful energy to both sustain their lives and facilitate their upward mobility.For this reason, the green movement is not just wrong [9], but evil. It is anti-life, inherently regressive, and worth opposing with all our political might. Gird yourself with the intellectual ammo available from Epstein’s Center for Industrial Progress [3].


The sign at her feet read “For a nuclear free, carbon free future.” The one in her hands an equally predictable “Excessive wealth and consumption are dying paradigms. Renew American with a Green Revolution.”

Before her stood Alex Epstein, energy expert and frequent PJTV guest commentator [2]. Noting the sign on the sidewalk, Epstein asked, “You’re opposed to nuclear power and [carbon dioxide] generating power?”

“Yes,” she answered.

“Do you know what percentage of power in the world those generate right now?”

“That’s not my concern. My concern is the people that are profiting off of power that is unsustainable….”

Calm among the hubbub of Zuccotti Park, Epstein endured a lengthy non-response, then answered the question for her.

“We’re talking about something that’s producing 95% of the power in the world,” he stated flatly. “This is the power that’s keeping people’s lights on. It’s keeping the food going. And you’re saying we ought to dismantle that somehow. And I’m saying, if that happens, the entire world as we know it will collapse.”

This is how Epstein and his cohort at the Center for Industrial Progress [3] confront the menace of radical environmentalism [4]. There is a difference between caring about the world we live in and elevating wilderness above human life. The former motivates industrious action, shaping the environment to promote a thriving human existence. The latter retards industry and reduces both the quality of life and the capacity to sustain it.