Pod Save America - "Jackasses v Jackson."

Episode Date: March 22, 2022

Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson sails through the first day of Republican attacks during her confirmation hearing, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy joins to talk through the White House’s plea for Covid funding in advance of a possible uptick in cases, and comedian/director Judd Apatow is in studio for a special round of Take Appreciator.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast. 

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. On today's show, Supreme Court nominee Katonji Brown-Jackson sails through the first day of Republican attacks during her confirmation hearing. U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy joins to talk through the White House's plea for COVID funding in advance of a possible uptick in cases. And comedian director Judd Apatow will be here in studio for a special round of Take Appreciator. How's that? That's cool. That's exciting. Before we start, the first two episodes of Stuck with Damon Young are out now. Also exciting. Nice. First up, Damon talks to Nicole Hannah-Jones about all

of the racial and economic factors at play when parents choose their child's school. Then, in the next episode, Damon is joined by Saida Grundy and Jason Reynolds to deconstruct all the weird, awkward, and terrifying intraracial anxieties people have about sex. New episodes every Tuesday. Follow Stuck with Damon Young only on Spotify. I've not heard them yet, but the book is amazing, so I can't wait to listen. Very excited. Damon's book, that is.

Also, check out a brand new episode of X-Ray Vision recorded live at South by Southwest. Jason and Rosie discuss the upcoming Moon Knight series, the new trailer for Marvel Studios' Ms. Marvel, and explore the historical and narrative importance of multiverses in fiction and comics. New episodes of X-Ray Vision drop every Friday. All right, let's get to the news. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown-Jackson appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday to kick off the confirmation hearing that will determine whether she becomes the 117th justice and the first black woman to serve in the nation's highest court. Judge Jackson has been confirmed by the Senate three times already when she was nominated to the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 2009, to the D.C. District Court in 2012 and to the D.C. Court of Appeals a year ago, where she was confirmed by a bipartisan vote of 53 to 44. She'll be confirmed again if all 50 Senate Democrats hang together, but the slim margin means that there's little room for error, which is why it's nice to have

a confirmation veteran like Judge Jackson as the nominee. Here's a clip from her opening statement. When I was born here in Washington, my parents were public school teachers, was born here in Washington, my parents were public school teachers. And to express both pride in their heritage and hope for the future, they gave me an African name, Ketanji Onyeka, which they were told means lovely one. My parents taught me that unlike the many barriers that they had had to face growing up, my path was clearer so that if I worked hard and I believed in myself in America, I could do anything or be anything I wanted to be. What did you guys think of Judge Jackson's opening statement? Love it?

Brings me no pleasure to report this. I think she blew it. I think it's a mess and I think i'll have to clean it up tommy do you have a dissenting view dissenting view yeah i mean there's very few people probably in the history of this process who are better prepared than judge jackson was aba well, fourth confirmation hearing, recently got a bipartisan vote. You know, like day one is always the least fireworks day. It's a lot of speeches

from very old U.S. senators, opening statement from the nominee. But like what I took away from her remarks were, I remember, you know, her adorable family. It was, she was talking about her college friends

who were there. She was talking about her college friends who were there. She was talking about her speech coach, her younger brother, did two tours in the Army. It was touching to hear her talk about trying to get the balance right between being a mom and being a professional and failing sometimes. It was a lot of focus on that personal. She pledged to make equal justice under the law a reality. Hard to argue with that in an opening statement. We'll get into Josh Hawley and some of the jerks later, but very good performance. Being a mom, you felt it when she talked about not always feeling like she got the work balance right as a mom on her way to this place.

And the whole thing was just one big dare to these fucking smug pricks to vote against her. It's just unbelievable. I should say to your point about all the speeches, Tommy, there were no questions today, which is one reason. Zero questions. The opening day, there's just such a weird process. just which is such a weird i know the process literally a speech from every senator on the judiciary committee and then a a short 10 minute statement from katanji brown jackson at the end and that was it that we called it a day right yeah could be people love to fucking hear themselves talk it's a meeting that could have been an email um but no i thought i thought the statement was

wonderful you know she she she took great pains to emphasize her judicial independence and there were some nice touches you guys mentioned sort of of the family stuff that she talked about in her background. You know, she also talked about how her opinions are long because she believes in transparency and she believes in the importance of having each litigant know that she has heard them, which I thought was really nice. She emphasized her 10 years as a judge. There was a nod to history and that she mentioned that she stands on the shoulders of Constance Baker Motley,

the first black woman to argue with the Supreme Court and the first appointed to the federal judiciary who happens to share a birthday with Katonji Brown Jackson. So there was a lot of nice touches in there in her opening statement. How would you guys characterize the confirmation strategy based on the statements from Jackson and all the Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee? What are they all going for here? I mean, well, I think Justice Alana Kagan once wrote in a book about the process, the safest and surest route to the prize lay in alternating platitudinous statement and judicious silence. out to the prize lay an alternating platitudinous statement and judicious silence. John Roberts gave similar advice to Sandra Day O'Connor when she was before the Senate. So they, the, the nominees try to say as little as they possibly can, uh, without insulting anybody. And you know, the,

the Democrats are obviously on board, if not thrilled with the pick, there was some very emo moments from Lindsey Graham. Lindsey's still working through some things. This is, again, a confirmation hearing that could have been a therapy session. He's still very mad about Brett Kavanaugh. It gives away the game a little. Their decision to bring out Kavanaugh at this moment is a way to score a point that actually does nothing

to help them in this hearing. It's not strategic, which kind of tells you where this is heading. What do you guys make of this? That they're trying to be like the civility party after four years of Trump? I think they've learned that you can be a hypocrite on anything and no one cares about

hypocrisy because no one has any kind of memory anymore. They're shameless. I think, of course, they are shameless. I think they genuinely, I think it is a genuine, not just for the cameras, a genuine article of faith on the right that Bork to Clarence Thomas to Brett Kavanaugh to Harry Reid nuking the filibuster for lower court judges is the story of left-wing radicalism on the court. I think that, I don't agree with it, but I think they genuinely have internalized that. They believe it.

They believe Kavanaugh was a culmination of that. They talk about it all the time. I mean, they talked about it today a lot, but they have, Lindsey Graham has been saying it since the Kavanaugh hearings. No, of course. Every time you get them in front of a camera. No, no, I'm saying this is their sincere story.

They really believe it. But anyway, back to the Democrat strategy here, because we're going to get to the Republican attacks in a second. I do think they are trying their hardest to sort of present her as a qualified historic nominee whose judicial philosophy is right in the mainstream. You know, they keep saying that over and over again. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, former judiciary chairman himself. He said that she's no judicial activist and is not anti-law enforcement or soft on crime they've all they've all mentioned how she was been praised by conservative judges

lawyers from both sides prosecutors and defenders who've been in front of her they've talked about how she comes from a law enforcement family they've mentioned that these law enforcement groups police groups support her put out in statements of support paternal order police endorsement has relatives who are cops. Yeah. And you can really, you can tell that this is sort of confounding Republicans a bit. Like Mitch McConnell at one point said, you know, I interviewed her and she said she has no judicial philosophy, but then all of her backers are saying that it's mainstream. So which is it?

I'm like, that's what you, is it no philosophy or a mainstream philosophy? I gotcha. That's fine. But, you know, Senate Republicans keep saying they want to treat Judge Jackson with respect and avoid personal attacks. They're taking great pains to say that, which is, you know, something they continue to mention as a way to complain about Kavanaugh. But in their opening statements, a number of them went after Jackson's record on affirmative action, child pornography, the representation of Guantanamo Bay detainees, and her position on expanding the Supreme Court. Take a listen. Her supporters look

at her resume and deduce a special empathy for criminals. I guess that means that government prosecutors and innocent crime victims start each trial at a disadvantage. So the next morning, there were headlines all over the country, really, accusing Judge Kavanaugh of being basically Bill Cosby. None of us are going to do that to you. When it comes to free speech, this committee should inquire, will you protect the rights of Americans to speak, to say unpopular ideas, to say ideas that the government doesn't want you to say that you nonetheless have a right to say. Will you protect freedom or restrict it? They have the most radical view of what a judge should do, and you were their choice. And you'll be asked, do you support expanding the Supreme Court?

I hope you give us an answer, because it shouldn't be hard. Either you do or you don't. The United States v. Hawkins. This was a child pornography case where the defendant distributed multiple images of child porn, possessed dozens more, including videos. The federal sentencing guidelines recommended a sentence of 97 to 121 months in prison. Prosecutors recommended 24 months in prison. Judge Jackson gave the defendant three months in prison. Judge Jackson gave the defendant three months in prison. So can you guys detect a Republican strategy here for a hearing that, you know, seems like it will result in a confirmation?

Yeah. Well, it's funny. It's interesting to me that Lindsey Graham, it never occurs to him that maybe the distinction between the two hearings, that there's no credible allegation of sexual assault in this one. Maybe that's why it's not coming up. You know, look at the Republicans calling Democrats soft on crime is a very, very old story. It was weaponized during Nixon and Reagan, but it's something we see all the time. So clearly that's the angle they're going for. They're trying to demonize her record as a public defender. She would be the first public defender ever on the Supreme Court. That's actually an exciting thing. It's full of prosecutors normally. And I think you would think that conservatives who like limited government would think that there is some value in protecting your average citizen from the overwhelming power of the state to prosecute you and throw you in

jail for life. But no, they would rather dem that and and go after rulings perceived as lenient and then josh holly is just really into child porn at the hearing as an issue what's up with this child pornography attack from josh holly uh and and why has it already been widely discredited yeah so i i had the good fortune of not seeing the attack directly. The first thing I saw about it, believe it or not, was an article in National Review by Andrew McCarthy, who is a right-winger, a right-wing legal analyst. Opposes Katonji Brown-Jackson nomination. The nomination has been one of the most ferocious right-wing conservatives there is. And what he said was the implication

that she has a soft spot for sex offenders who prey on children because she argued against severe mandatory minimum prison sentence for the receipt and distribution of pornographic images is a smear. So he decided it was a smear. He said, meritless to the point of demagoguery.

And yeah, I mean, that's... Put it in Josh Hawley's Wikipedia. And specifically, one of the things that Josh Hawley did that was most egregious was he took screenshots of her quoting back witness testimony and suggested that these were her opinions that she was stating when in fact she was repeating back to a witness what the witness had said in the form of a question so that is really incredibly misleading completely out of context so that's that and then on the sentencing itself holly argues just so everyone knows that that she handed down lighter sentences on child pornography cases lighter than the

justice department was seeking or the u.s sentencing guidelines recommended but her sentences in five of the seven cases were the same as or greater than what the U.S. probation office recommended. And most judges in the country, conservative or liberal, issue sentences below the guidelines, including many judges that Josh Hawley and other Republicans have confirmed. Judges issue below-guideline sentences in child pornography cases in nearly 80% of cases in

Washington, D.C., where Katonji Brown Jackson sit, and 77% of cases in Missouri, where Josh Hawley, senator, and confirmed all the judges there. And like, you know, we are trying to figure out as a society how to unravel the fact that we live in a police and prison state. Why do we, what are the politics that led to it? It and prison state why do we uh what what are the politics that led to it it's this kind of politics it's it's mitch mcconnell saying that you must be friendly with criminals uh because uh you were a public defender uh like john adams in the boston fucking massacre uh something i learned from hbo and and then you have, and then, and you, and you see how judges and prosecutors face this incredible pressure to never use common sense, to never show mercy in certain cases, putting this

specific, uh, the, the specific cases aside to, to throw the book at people because at some point, someone like Josh Hawley will come along and try to demagogue the issue, no matter what the, no matter what the case, no matter what your record may be. The people who tend to hate mandatory minimums the most are judges because it takes away their ability to be rational, reasonable people and to take into account circumstances that are specific to a case. So Holly also goes after her because she was part of this U.S. Sentencing Commission that recommended some changes to the way mandatory minimum laws were enforced, the duration of them, et cetera. The problem with that attack is that the commission was

bipartisan and every recommendation was unanimous, which led to Judge William Pryor, who's a right-wing Republican. I remember him being the subject of a huge US Senate fight back in the day, coming out to defend Judge Jackson saying we worked by consensus and that is the tradition of the sentencing commission. Virtually all of our votes were unanimous and data driven. So Josh Hawley, you insufferable dick, this is the reality. And this was the child pornography set of cases. They're also going to go after her in the days to come on defending Guantanamo Bay. Yeah, Gitmo, because that's gone really well. You know, and there was another Reagan nominated appeals judge

who released a statement today and said, when a lawyer represents an unattractive defendant, a Guantanamo detainee is an example. That's just a public defender doing their job. That's what a public defender is. You are assigned to give people the representation that is their right in the Constitution. Like John Adams in the Boston Massacre. Paul Giamatti was wonderful in that moment. I mean, but just one other point about this, too, which is I do think Josh Hawley knows exactly what he's doing. There's a reason he chose this issue for us. He knows who he's playing footsie with. He knows that he is throwing a little chum in the water for the QAnon people. I think Mitch McConnell talking about soft on crime, Marsha Blackburn saying you have a hidden secret agenda

to do critical race theory. They are also very comfortable exploiting the fact that there's a black woman who makes their base fundamentally uncomfortable. So they all know exactly what they're doing. Race is swirling in all of this. And certainly, I'm sure, explicitly, implicitly, one way or the other is guiding their approach. The Gitmo thing really bugs me, though, because Guantanamo Bay is a decades-long just travesty of justice.

And the idea that you would attack someone for defending someone imprisoned there, considering how many people have been held wrongly, have been tortured, have been just kept in sort of a legal, liminal space between, you know, reality and hell. It's just, it's a horrible, horrible thing. And shame on all of them for demagoguing it. But the politics of terrorism in this country are still a disaster this many years after 9-11. And look, I think they are doing this knowing that she's probably going to be confirmed.

Someone asked Joe Manchin after the hearing what he thought about the Josh Hawley stuff. And he was like, you sure it was Hawley, right? Take that for what it's worth. Like just, you know, Joe Manchin's not buying it, right? So, but I don't think it's about her necessarily. They're using her for these attacks. You know, the New York Times reports that Democrats believe the Republican attacks on Judge Jackson and other Biden judicial nominees are, quote, tied to a central element of Republicans' midterm campaign strategy,

which is to blame Democrats for an increase in crime by portraying them as unwilling to punish lawlessness and hostile to law enforcement. How should Democrats handle these attacks, knowing that they are connected to a larger midterm case that Republicans are trying to make about Democrats' soft on crime? Well, I feel like you have to split that in half. There's how Democrats handle this around the hearings, and that's how the Democrats handle it more broadly. I assume that there will be pushback in this hearing. And as of right now, Judge Jackson has not had the opportunity to push back against what

is an offensive and despicable attack from Josh Hawley. And I expect that that will be a moment. Beyond that, I think we're going to make a positive case for why this is a historic nomination of a judge in the mainstream, as Tommy said, at a great victory for Joe Biden and a great victory for Democrats. And beyond that, how much do we have to really engage in this? I guess I don't really buy that they're trying to make this some part of a big midterm case. I think they're trying to get through this and get onto the next one. Because I think what's really happening here is like Lindsey Graham is out there saying this is a new game for the Supreme Court. And that's why he is talking about the Brett Kavanaugh hearing.

He's saying, I'm going to drop the art of this now. I know I voted for her, but now it's just hand-to-hand combat at these things. And it's going to be as partisan as we want it to be and blah, blah, blah. That's the way forward now. I'm actually fine with that. I'm tired of the theater around this bullshit. I'm tired of pretending judges are nonpartisan actors while Ginny Thomas storms the Capitol and lies and pretends she doesn't talk to Clarence Thomas about what's

going on. I don't think this is going to have any factor in the midterms. I really don't. I hope he got my flowers. Which who? Clarence? I disagree. I think they're building a case. Is some midterm voter going to remember what happened in the hearing with some question no probably not um but they're going to talk about defund the police but it's just gonna be unrelated to this they're going to be crime is up and democrats are defunding the police they're nominating judges not just katanya bryan jackson's all

these judges these public defenders let people off uh these mayors did it these so-called progressive prosecutors that they're trying to recall it's a big news all part of a case these public defenders let people off uh these mayors did it these so-called progressive prosecutors that they're trying to recall it's a big all part of a case it's a big news cycle they're not going to waste it yeah and i'm not going to waste it trying to actually defeat her because they don't think they can and i don't think that what democrats can afford to do is do what some very online people do with inflation and gas prices and pretend that uh rising uh murder rates are not something that people are actually concerned about or not a legitimate concern for people to have, because I think you're seeing it

in the polling everywhere that it's actually has become a concern for a lot of people. Oh, of course. Look, I agree that people are concerned about crime. People always vote on crime. I think if you're going to go for a shiny object in the midterm to tell a story about Democrats who are soft on whatever, you're going to go for like Chesa Boudin, who's the district attorney in San Francisco, or you're going to look at some of these other examples that seem, you're going to find some sort of detail in one of these stories that is, you know, sounds terrifying and abstraction. I just don't think you're going to get it at her because she's incredibly good at this. Yeah. I just want Democrats to fight back on this and not avoid it. Like I think, you know, Biden did in this, in the state of the union, right? I mean,

he's out there, we're going to fund the police. We're not going to do it on the police. Biden's already getting ahead of these attacks. Dan and I talked about that a little bit, but what I wish he had done in the state of the union is it's, it's fine to say I'm, I'm against defunding the police. You can also talk about how you're also for police reform and criminal justice reform. Like you can be out there and say, you can be pro police reform and also pro public safety. Like, you know. For sure. We can keep people safe from crime and police misconduct. There shouldn't be a choice. And also, by the way, the six states with the highest per capita murder rate

all went for Trump in 2020. This whole thing, this blue cities, blue states, it's Trump states and Trump cities that have had higher murder rates over the last couple years. So don't make it some Democrat-run city thing. That is where I think think that's on democrats that's also that's on the media which has fully kind of embraced the right wing kind of talking points about where this is coming from the fact that that you know rural counties have seen the same uptick that some of the more uh uh uh sort

of progressive cities have seen like i i you you know, there are these jokes you see where people say there's a moment now, like where I feel like that this right-wing idea that this is a failure of progressive cities and not a broad national trend has been so internalized that like I hear it myself. I'm like, no, you want to blame your local person. You want to blame the mayor.

You want to blame the DA. Fine, take issue with whoever you want to take issue with. This is a national problem. You are buying Tucker Carlson's talking points. And we have done a very bad job of pushing back against it. Because we try to avoid the issue and say, oh, it's not a real issue. It's made up by the right wing. So we avoid it instead of taking on the argument, like you just said, and saying it's a national issue. And by the way, it's even worse in some red states. Yeah. And look, a lot of this, again, goes back to race because Republicans always go to look at Chicago, look at the homicides there. They make it a city issue. The challenge, I think, for Republicans who try to demagogue this, maybe it'll be challenged, maybe it won't, is that you've already got Tom Cotton out there attacking Donald Trump and the first step back in the very limited criminal justice reform that he put in place.

very limited criminal justice reform that he put in place. So I don't know. It's sort of like a muddled message. I do think that they're going to focus on cities and defund and all the things we've been hearing at midterms and in the general election. I don't, you know, who knows if it'll work or not. I agree we should take it on. I just, my guess is this hearing is not a part of that. Well, I do think, I think the hearing is a lesson. And I think that the way that so far, Judge Jackson and the Democrats are handling it in this hearing is good and effective. Yeah, for sure. And it's a lesson. And I think that the way that so far, Judge Jackson and the Democrats are handling it in this hearing is good and effective. And it's a lesson for Democrats in the midterms. Josh Hawley being an idiot made it easier because he was so dishonest and so egregious with this stupid Twitter thread that he embarrassed himself. I think he kind of embarrassed McConnell and the

party. They were signaling that they didn't want to go down this kind of gutter route. And then he just went right there. I agree. Yeah, I mean, like, stepping back from all this, what's their strategy? Ted Cruz is mad about Kavanaugh and cancel culture. Josh Hawley's making up stuff about, you know, misquoting her and trying to drum something up that's pretty heinous. They're trying to soft on—

Marsha Blackburn's on CRT. The answer is they're all over the fucking place because they think she's going to end up on the Supreme Court. No, I thought— Does it, right? I included that clip from McConnell at the beginning of that supercut, which wasn't from today. It was from some because I actually thought it was the only quote that sort of summarized what they hoped the thing is, which

is just soft on crime. But all the Yahoo's on the committee, they all went their own route. They're yelling about Kavanaugh. They're talking about CRT. I don't think it was well coordinated. And this is this is why being a democrat's annoying because because of alliteration we always get the democrats disarray republicans are all over the place they're screwing up a supreme court hearing in with their mixed messages and they're not playing a strong hand anyway they don't have the votes so she's eminently well qualified and they all just voted for her and and you know the white house isn't saying right but the hope here is that they get a couple of republican votes they're not gonna get josh holly but there's a few

republicans on the line here they might get susan collins tom tillis from north carolina was just glowing today about her which i was surprised about you know i guess he just won re-election um but said something really nice there's a couple retiring republican senators you might get a vote or two i think collins voted for her, right, previously? Collins, Murkowski, and Graham voted for him, yeah. Yeah, so we'll see. And Graham's just out there whining like,

oh, if you'd named someone from South Carolina, I would have voted for her. Like, okay. Who knows? So geography is all you care about? Yeah. What a thoughtful way

to approach this. That guy's lost the plot. He could be a yes, he could be a no, we'll see. Yeah, we don't know. He could be. All right, when we come back, Lovett and I will talk

to U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy about the latest in COVID. COVID cases and hospitalizations in the U.S. are currently at their lowest level since last summer. But with the even more transmissible Omicron sub-variant BA.2 causing a spike in Europe, the White House wants to prepare for a possible case increase here by adequately funding the supply and distribution of vaccines, treatments, surveillance, and testing. Unfortunately, that funding was stripped out of a government funding bill that passed the other week, and now Republicans say they won't support the COVID spending. Here to talk to us about this madness, as well as where we are in the pandemic, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy.

Dr. Murthy, welcome back to the pod. Well, thanks so much. It's good to be back with you, John. It's good to have you. Dr. Fauci said over the weekend that we can expect BA.2 to cause an uptick in cases here, but not another surge. Do you agree, and why do you think that might be the case? Well, I do think that we should expect in the months ahead, because COVID has not disappeared entirely, that there will likely be rises in cases and falls in

cases. How high those case numbers go will really depend on the nature of the variant and on our behavior, frankly. But the key is that we are trying to prevent, most importantly, people from ending up in the hospital and losing their life to the virus. And the good news, John, is that in our toolkit, we have these vaccines, boosters and treatments that actually work very well to protect people from hospitalization and death. The real question is going to be, can we get enough people to utilize these vaccines, boosters and treatments? We've had basically two thirdsthirds of the country that's gotten vaccinated with at least one shot and mostly two, but we need people to get that third shot, that booster dose, because especially with a variant like Omicron, it turns out that third

dose is especially helpful. And lastly, John, we've made a lot of strides to making the therapeutics, the oral and IV medicines available for people. And these have been really a lifesaver, literally. But the key is to keep all of this going, the vaccines, the boosters, the medications that help save lives. We need to sustain our funding for this. Otherwise, all the work that's been put into discovering, manufacturing, and distributing these tools, unfortunately, will go to waste if people don't have access to it. So that's the context for why public health officials have been so alarmed to see this funding stripped out of the spending bill that had to pass. Can you talk a

little bit more specifically, like what happens if Congress doesn't put this money in place? What does it go towards right now? It's a really good question. And I'm glad we're talking about this because one of the most important lessons that we have learned from COVID, a lesson, frankly, that we have been reminded of again and again, whenever we've had an outbreak, whether it's Ebola or Zika, is that we have to not only think short term, but also long term when it comes to public health. We've got to make sure that we are not short-changing the long-term investments we have to make in everything from vaccine production to data infrastructure, to the partnerships that we need.

And if we don't get the funding to continue this effort, here's what you're going to see. We are already on the verge of running out of money for the therapeutics. We've had to actually reduce the distribution of some of the monoclonal antibodies, because again, we don't have the funds to purchase more of those. The second is we won't be able to purchase more of the oral therapeutics, the Paxilidin in particular, beyond the 20 million

that we've already secured. That's a highly effective medicine. We need to be able to get more of that to make it available. When it comes to vaccines and booster themselves, more of that to make it available. When it comes to vaccines and booster themselves, if there is a recommendation that the FDA ultimately makes for another booster shot for the broader population, we will not have enough money to purchase and make available that additional booster shot for the whole population. The list goes on. Testing is another area where, you know, we've done a good job, I think, in making sure people now have access to tests. We need to sustain that. We saw how tough it was when people didn't have sufficient access to tests in the early days of Omicron. We can't afford to live through that again. So however you look at it, the funding is really critical. And these are the most immediate needs. But

we want to continue our surveillance. Also, if we want to make sure that we're investing in supporting the uninsured and making sure that they don't have to pay in order to get lifesaving treatments and vaccines, we have to make sure that funding continues. What's the White House's plan to get this funding passed? I mean, the Republicans sound like they don't want to support it. Obviously, you can't get anything done in Congress without 10 Republican votes in the Senate. Are there any backup plans in case Congress acts like Congress and doesn't get this done? Is there money that we can shift from somewhere else? What's the plan? Yeah, it's a really good question, John. Well, I will say that multiple individuals from the

White House, the Department of Health and Human Services, across the board have been engaging with the Hill for weeks in an effort to try to move this legislation for funding forward in order to make the case and help people understand why it's so dire that we make sure there's not a funding gap here. The truth is that we are actually quite limited in what we can shift over. If we wanted to take the money that's actually allocated for states and local government and community support and shift that over to vaccines and therapeutics, that would actually require Congress to act as well to provide the authority to shift those funds. So this is actually a difficult position.

It's not like there is a large pot of unused money that the administration at will can take and supply for the vaccines and therapeutics and fill that need entirely. So we really do need Congress to act. This isn't a, you know, this isn't a fire drill. This is the real thing. So right now, Omicron is causing these massive case increases in countries like South Korea that have had universal mask mandates and some of the most restrictive public health measures anywhere in the world. In January, Dr. Fauci, just back from opening a bio lab in Ukraine, said that Omicron will at some point, he didn't did his face move at all, didn't even didn't even adjust at all,

that that that everybody, regardless of what public health measures are in place, will at some point that Omicron will find their way to them. Does that make tools like vaccines and treatments more important than some of these restrictions? There is a debate going on, right? You see this data out of places like South Korea, which basically showed that like Omicron has obliterated public health measures and what we're left with are therapeutics. We're left with the vaccine. We're left with some of these treatments. Where do you fall on that debate right now? Well, look, one thing that this whole conversation points to is that you've got to continue evaluating and updating your guidance and your point of view as the data shifts and as the virus shifts. And what we saw with Omicron is that this is an incredibly transmissible virus, and it does

actually has evaded some of our immune response, some of our vaccines and therapeutics at times. does actually has evaded some of our immune response, some of our vaccines and therapeutics at times. The good news is we've found ways around that. But what you're pointing at is that getting the vaccine and in particular getting boosted is extraordinarily important in terms of saving lives and hospitalizations when it comes to Omicron. It doesn't mean that masks don't work. It doesn't mean that ventilation isn't important. Those things still do reduce risk. But when you're dealing with a tougher foe, what we have found is that getting vaccinated and boosted, that is the best way to reduce your risk of ending up in the hospital or dying. So that's what we've got to focus on. If you look at Hong Kong, if you look at,

you know, in particular, part of the reason they're seeing such a significant, you know, number of people hospitalized and losing their life is because their vaccination rate among the elderly is quite low, markedly lower than ours, in fact. But in countries which had a high vaccination rate, in particular those that chose a highly effective vaccine, and we are blessed to have those here in the United States, vaccine, and we are blessed to have those here in the United States, even though they may be seeing a large wave of Omicron, there has been a disproportionate rise in the hospitalization and deaths, meaning far much more of an increase in cases and much less of an increase in hospitalizations and deaths. That just shows us that good vaccines are really the backbone of our effort to protect people against Omicron and other variants of COVID. of our effort to protect people against Omicron and other variants of COVID.

I've heard some people ask, why did we relax public health measures like mandatory indoor masking right before BA.2 becomes dominant here? Can you talk about the CDC's thinking in changing their community transmission guidelines? Because I think some of the debate focuses on the politics of whether people are tired of COVID or not or want more masks or not. And in reality, the CDC, there was some science and some public health thinking that went into changing those guidelines. Can you talk about those for people? Absolutely. And look, I can understand why people might be asking questions and why some people may not feel comfortable with the measures. We've been at this for two years, and people are actually, you know, in many ways there's quite a diversity of thought among the general public in terms of where they are.

Some people want the pandemic to be over yesterday and think that it already is. Other people believe that the pandemic will never be over and that we should never ratchet down our precautions. There are a lot of people in the middle. But here's what to know about why the CDC made its decision. From the very beginning, the CDC had actually said that the guidelines that it puts out for when to use measures like masks, that that should reflect people's risk in the community. And they have been looking at the evolving data to understand what the risk actually is to people. We all knew that when cases go down,

that that means lesser risk, that you may get infected from someone in their community. But they were also reflecting, I think, our evolving understanding that the most important goal that we have here is to save lives and keep people out of the hospital to prevent the severe illness. And so in the beginning, they had a metric

for guiding them on precautions that was based solely on cases. What they did is they didn't jettison that. They didn't say, OK, case counts no longer matter. They still have a measure of case counts in their overall algorithm for determining community risk. But they also now include hospitalization rates and hospital capacity. So those three metrics together, cases, hospitalization rates, hospital capacity, this reflects the updated data and our most important focus, which is on saving lives and keeping people out of the hospital. And that's what people are using now in communities

across the country. With all that said, one last point that's really important to underscore. Their guidance does not mean that people who choose to wear a mask in a particular situation because they're at high risk or they live with somebody who's high risk, that that is the wrong decision. In fact, we want people to have the freedom to do that. What's really key, though, is that they have access, high quality masks and made freely available to people in the public was so important because we don't want to create equity issues by, you know, by not essentially providing the key tools people need to protect themselves. And if you are vaccinated, boosted, and wearing a high quality mask, like an N95 or a KN95, that is very, very protective, right? Even if other people around you aren't necessarily wearing masks. Yeah, so, and let's talk about protective against what,

right? If you're vaccinated fully, if you have gotten your basic series of the vaccine and you're boosted as well, then your protection against hospitalization or death is very high. If you, on top of that, wear a high quality mask when you're with people outside your household,

then your risk goes down even further, even if they are not wearing masks. And so this is, you know, we have good tools is the bottom line. And people are going to make different decisions here. You know, some people may have, you know, low, you know, sort of threshold of risk, and they may decide, you know what, I'm going to keep wearing my mask. And there may be different reasons for that. Maybe they have a child at home, like I do, who's under five, and they might be worried about them because the vaccine's not available to them. Maybe they're a caregiver for someone who's

immunocompromised in their home, or maybe they themselves are immunocompromised. And I make this point just because we're going to see people moving at different rates when it comes to their choices around some of these mitigation measures. And it's really important that we not ridicule people if they choose to wear a mask in school. I'm actually a little bit worried about schools themselves because you've got to make sure that kids also don't ridicule others for wearing masks. If one family decides they want their child

to keep wearing masks, that's okay. You know, we just have to realize that people are going to go at different paces here. There's also a lot of people right now suffering from long COVID, and there's a lot of vaccinated and boosted people worried about being infected at all because of the potential that they might get infected with or develop long COVID after an infection what's the latest science on what kind of protection vaccination offers against long COVID look it's an important question and

I wish we knew the answer to every question about COVID-19. We've learned a tremendous amount in the last two years. But long COVID is one of the areas where we still need to deepen our understanding here about the frequency of long COVID and, frankly, about how long it lasts and about who's most at risk for it. A couple of things that we do know, though, based on the data, is that people's severity of infection does seem to have an impact on whether or not they're likely to develop long COVID. So more severe infections, people tend to be more at risk for prolonged symptoms. But we've also seen now in multiple studies that if you get vaccinated and protection for vaccines and boosters,

that also lowers your risk significantly of getting long COVID, even if you have a breakthrough infection. Does it reduce it to zero? No, no vaccine or intervention is perfect. And so for this reason, also, I would understand why some people may choose to be more cautious. Because even though we think it's a minority of people who get long COVID syndrome, how much how small or large that minority is, that is exactly what we're trying to understand. And there's not full clarity around that. So you know, being cautious, I think is appropriate. It's why we, you know,

are still urging people, even though you get great protection against hospitalization deaths from the vaccines, to still take the precautions you can to avoid spread, because again, better to prevent an illness than to get into the consequences thereafter. So just sort of cutting through, we've had a lot of conversations about masks. We're talking about masks endlessly. The administration is now desperately trying to get funding for some of the most miraculous and incredible treatments in the history of public health that millions of people aren't taking. They're not getting boosted. The availability of some of these, like this new Pfizer treatment, right? It's not available everywhere. It's not

something you can just go to the pharmacist and get. It needs to be dispensed carefully because there's not enough of it. How did these two things go together? If we get to the point where you can walk into a CVS, get a test, and if it's positive, even if you're not that symptomatic or not symptomatic at all, you still get some kind of a treatment to lessen the effect of COVID. If we get to the point where that is, and everyone can get boosted and more people have gotten boosted, do you believe that would be the end of this debate about masks? Because masks would be for people who need to protect themselves, not as a public health measure, but as a personal measure day to day? Well, I certainly think it will help a great deal. You know, I think if you have

vaccines and boosters readily available to anyone who needs them, if you have effective or, you know, therapeutics available to all who need them, then yes, you could be in a scenario where the risk of a bad outcome to the vast, vast majority of the population would be low. that would mean that we could, you know, it would be easier and more comfortable for people to pull back on mitigation measures. With that said, there always will be, I think, some people for whom, you know, the risk of getting COVID may be too great. They may worry about long COVID, they may be immunocompromised themselves, and they may have had difficult experiences with their health, and that might lead them to be more cautious. And that's okay. But I lastly should mention that on the therapeutics front, in terms of availability, every month since January, the availability of these medications like Paxlovid,

the highly effective oral therapeutic, has actually been increasing. In fact, there are more therapeutics right now than people are actually using. And some of that might be because cases are lower right now than they have been. But what we want to be prepared for is that if there is another wave, that we have as much available for people as we need. That's why, again, to come back to this funding piece, we don't want to get behind on this. And one of my worries, not just as Surgeon General, but frankly, as an American, is I want my country to be ahead of the game. I want us to not be funding things on an emergency basis all the time. We saw this with Zika. We saw this with Ebola. Back then, we were talking about how

much, how important it was for us to make the proactive, forward-thinking investments in the public health infrastructure so the country wasn't scrambling for funds and for infrastructure when it needed it in the midst of a crisis. I worry that we may be falling back into that same mindset again, thinking, okay, you know, COVID seems to be getting better in terms of cases. So we now no longer need to invest in public health interventions and infrastructure. To me, that would be the equivalent of saying, you know what, I feel pretty fit right now. I've been working out three, four days a week. So because I'm fit now, I don't need to work out anymore. Well, if I did that, then I would ultimately cease to become fit,

and that would put me at risk in terms of my health. That is what we seem to do so often as a country. We need to break that cycle, start thinking ahead, proactively funding the things that we need to fund. And COVID has been a time where Congress didn't give credit where credit is due. On a bipartisan basis, during the last two years, Congress has provided significant funding for the COVID effort. And it's thanks to that leadership, the sacrifices of people around our country, the incredible work of scientists, that we've made

the progress that we have with vaccines, therapeutics, and so many other interventions. I just don't want us to lose that progress. And I'll lastly say this, my most painful moments as a doctor were when I knew what a patient needed. I knew what illness they had. I knew what medicine they needed to save their lives and improve their health. But I couldn't actually get it to them because they didn't have insurance coverage or the medication wasn't available. I don't want us to be in that situation again. I don't want a doctor to have to tell a patient, you know, I know how to save your life, but the country doesn't have money to pay for the booster shot that you need. Or we don't have money as a country to put toward making sure that the medicines are available that could save

your lives and lives of your family. It's a conversation we never should have to have, because we know how to solve this problem. We just got to make the smart investments now and not wait continually until a crisis is upon us. It sounds like what you're saying is medically speaking, not passing funding for boosters and treatments now is fucking stupid and nuts. Is that right? Yes. Did we get him on the record? Dr. Murthy, before he keeps going, thank you so much always for coming on the show. Bailing him out.

And walking us through this with your calm analysis and advice. We appreciate it. Stupid and nuts, right? Stupid and nuts. It is not the wisest decision for us as a country. There we go. Not the wisest decision. We'll go with that.

That's a yes. That's a yes. Subtitle it yes. The bad mind is COVID is not quitting. We the wisest decision. We'll go with that. That's a yes. That's a yes. Subtitle it yes. The bottom line is COVID is not quitting. We can't quit either. And I just don't want to see us go down that path because we've sacrificed too much. We've gotten too far. I have to give up now.

Yeah. Yell at Congress, everyone. It's up to them. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you, Dr. Murthy. We appreciate it. Of course.

Good to be with you anytime okay we are back with a very special edition of take appreciator with so many bad takes this week we figured we needed an extra hand to sort through them joining us now is director comedian and producer judd apatow whose book sick, Sicker in the Head, More Conversations About Life and Comedy, is out March 29th. And his new movie, The Bubble, comes out April 1st on Netflix. Judd, thanks for being here. It's good to be here.

Thank you for having me. It's good to have you. Before we play the game... That was a weird energy. It was weird energy because I realize you're videotaping it, but yet it feels like you're not. Yeah, that's part of it.

I was just watching an interview I did where they did a Zoom and in my head they weren't going to use the video and i'm looking straight down like a mental patient the whole time because i don't think that you're going to see it and it looks crazy like i look like i'm going to hurt somebody oh yeah okay well keep that in mind we'll try to fix that we can cut cut around that. I just saw the bubble last night. I laughed very hard throughout the movie. Thank you. And I realized that it's the first piece of entertainment about life during the pandemic that didn't give me PTSD and was actually enjoyable to watch.

How did you guys think about that aspect of the movie while you were making it? We just thought at some point someone will do a comedy about this why not be the first person to try you did it what a terrible thing to throw yourself into but i really couldn't think of anything else to write about because i felt like the world had changed and anything i thought about didn't really exist anymore and i and i did need to work or i'd go crazy so i I thought I'd just talk about isolation madness. And did you set out to mock the fact that there is a documentary about the making of Don't Look Up in a bubble?

Is there? Was that your goal to rip those people to pieces? To really expose them? For their making of Don't Look Up? It's going to embarrass them. What's funny is the whole time i was talking to everyone else in production like adam mckay and the white lotus people and all the jurassic people and we were all having that conversation like why are we even attempting this now that's

that's what felt so weird because they were making movies i was making a movie about how weird it is to think you need to make a movie at this time. But I am making a movie. So I'm a hypocrite in the process of every minute. There were a lot of layers there. I liked it. I think of you, I assume that at some point we will get the kind of leaked footage like Tom Cruise on set of you just screaming with all intensity saying, we are saving Hollywood. No, that's not what it would be. If someone videotaped me or audiotaped me on set and released what I'm really like,

it would be me going, how can you not bring the salsa with the burrito? I can't eat this dry. Why do you have a vaguely southern accent on set? I thought that was like more Malibu-ish. When I'm angry, it changes. It changes. It turns into kind of an angry Jeff Bridges. vaguely southern accent on set is that that was like more malibu-ish i don't know malibu when i'm angry it changes it changes it turns it's kind of an angry jeff ridges um sure when you worked with pete davidson on uh the king of staten island did you think to yourself future astronaut i guess on again off again astronaut it does seem like the natural extension

yeah of his brand extension of what's happening is that it all leads to space. But doesn't it all lead to space for all of us? Like at some point, don't you get on that list as well where they just go, you guys want to do a show in space? I think it's kind of like... I'm not going to space. It's kind of like the vaccine.

It'll be really, really hard to get it and then all of a sudden it'll be really easy to get it. I'm going to wait until then. Now let me ask a question about space generally. We're the people to ask. Are we talking about space or just really high? Yeah, like just beyond the atmosphere. Yeah, the Bezos one's just really high, right?

Or maybe they fold them. You're looking outside the window of the space shuttle and they're just... You know, Disney can take you to space. But it does seem there's a subtle distinction between flying into space and falling yes from very high up for a while exactly and that seems to be more of the jeff bezos speed how close are we to the moon here like if i'm not pretty close to the moon if if earth doesn't seem really tiny and i'm not crying at the vastness of the universe aren't i really just flying high yeah for how much is it what does it cost if you paid to do

this if you have to ask us too much you know is it a few hundred grand and what do they charge i mean i can't believe he's not going anymore just because there was like a scheduling mishap that that happens like you oh i was supposed to go to space, but then I just, I had booked a movie, so I couldn't go. King of Staten Island 2. Conflicted. I hope it's something promotional that benefits me that he's doing instead of going to space.

Like the new Blu-ray, the new additional Blu-ray. I gotta do one of the last Blu-ray commentaries. Exactly. Something with Kanye, maybe. Should we do this game? Let's do Take Appreciator. Elijah, is our chief take officer here? There he is.

Come on. Hey, Elijah. Judd, this is Elijah. Yes. Hello, Elijah. He's a young version of me. If there's ever been a person that's me from the past, it is Elijah. Hi, Judd. Hi, guys. You guys ready to play the game? Of course. Sure. I'll explain how it works again real quick.

I'm going to share some notably bad punitry with you all. The producers have seen these takes. Judd and the guys have not. They'll give their reactions, then rate them on a scale of 1 to 4 politicos. You already said you're ready, so let's just get right into it. Is 1 good or 4 good? These are bad takes.

4 is the take is so bad and so intentionally bad because we're appreci these are bad takes. So four is, the take is so bad. Yes. And so intentionally bad, because we're appreciating really bad takes. Yes. That you're going to give it the four. The art form is so awful. The four politicos, it's a full playbook, we call it.

Yeah, okay. Does that make sense to you? You understand our ridiculous inside joke. We're talking about the politico. I get it, I love it. I love it. It's a congressional rag. Thank you. Playbook is their morning digest. We're talking about the Politico. I get it. I love it. It's a congressional rag. Playbook is their morning

digest. We poke fun. It's a tip sheet, if you will. I give this 11 axioses. There we go. There we go. All right. Let's jump into it. This first one caused quite a stir. It's from the New York Times.

It's a piece titled, America Has a Free Speech Problem. All right. So here's a quote from the piece. Times. It's a piece titled America has a free speech problem. All right. So here's a quote from the piece for all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims. Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country. The right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned. Well, you know what? The New York Times don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

What a bunch of stupid fucking douchebags. Fear of being shamed or shunned. Well, you know what? The New York Times doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. What a bunch of stupid fucking douchebags. You assholes. You assholes, New York Times. Clip it. Clip it. Wait a second. Clip it.

Wait a second. I just was allowed to do that. It seemed like you could do it. You were allowed to do that. I guess maybe they're wrong because this is be airing somewhere you may be shunned you could be shunned you definitely could be shamed no the the shunning yeah the shunning blowback is about to happen i don't even know if i'm right now here's the thing call me in a week let me know if i'm still in the business yeah yeah like judd here's a question for you if you

were one day shunned how long would it take for you to find out? Exactly. No one knows who I am to shun me. I would not know. I'm, you know, here's the thing I'm learning as I, as I get old, it's really good to be under the radar for the most part. You don't really want people to pay that much attention to you. You want just enough attention that you might get into a restaurant when it's crowded but you don't want more than that you just and and you it's okay if that only happens one out of ten times you beg the maitre d and show them i your imdb page i have reached that level but because my name is john favreau like the actor director so sometimes i'm let into the crowded restaurant because they thought it was him but when it's pretty sweet it's just me, they don't care. But does it work like this, you say?

The Jon Favreau party. And then they're like, oh, is your party here? Yeah, they're coming and then they sit down and they expect Jon Favreau to come. And then you're like, no, I'm the Jon Favreau part. It's usually just their face drops when they see me and I'm like, oh, it's Jon Favreau. Or they're like, Jon Favreau must be working on some movie

where he has to slim down for this movie. You're an Avenger now. I give it two politicos. Two politicos? Give your reasoning, Tommy. Because it's stupid, but it's just so tediously stupid that I just, I don't care anymore.

I can't do the same cancel culture debate from the New York Times or anybody else. It's just, how many times are we going to have this? I'll be honest, is that I did not read the entire editorial. I read about half of it. And that opening that Elijah read was like, you know, in the Constitution, you know, the freedoms, it's like the freedom to assemble and freedom of the press and freedom to not be shunned or shamed.

I'm just like, look, I thought it was a dumb editorial. I also think that people got to stop letting themselves get triggered by the New York Times a little bit. You know, like if you want to cancel your subscription to the New York Times, that's fine. You can cancel if you want. But I would just say that like maybe, you know, don't subscribe to a newspaper just to make sure that the opinions columns are right in line with your views. Subscribe because of the journalism in the paper. I remember Roger Ebert saying heavyweights wasn't good. Was that cancel culture?

No, Tommy's right. The ill-defined, vague nature of this debate is what makes it infuriating. I feel like people have been trying to cancel me from day one, and I was canceled all the time. Freaks and Geeks was canceled. Ben's Solution was canceled. Undeclared was canceled.

Is that cancel culture? I'll give it three. Still should go back to the game. Still Wizards of the Light show? Yeah. I'll give it I'm bored. I'm bored of the New York Times talking about it. Why don't they just talk about like,

shouldn't everyone get the day off to vote? And just write about that every day for a year. There you go. That's a good one. National holiday for everyone. And then you give Columbus Day day for a year. There you go. National holiday. And we like give Columbus Day to the voting thing. You know, you get rid of Columbus Day and you give everyone the day off and then we just vote. Easy with that.

I'm Italian. So let's hold the brakes on that. Oh no, you cancel Elijah. What do you got? What do you got? Give us another take, Elijah. All right. This one needs some context.

Let's go to a place where we definitely need some shaming and possibly shunning the ohio republican senate primary uh this weekend during a debate republican senate front runners mike gibbons and josh mandel almost got into a physical altercation on stage mandel got out of his chair and got about an inch from gibbons's face to paint a picture gibbons is about 70 years old it had a dude off gibbons told mandel you're dealing with the wrong dude man to which mandel replied no you're dealing with the wrong guy then one of them called the other one a it's unclear who the whole time jd vance was shifting around uncomfortably in the seat this one's really more about that setup than the actual take is there taking take here take yeah

you just want to tell that story didn't you yeah where did this happen i missed it happened in ohio ohio republican senate debate in the middle of the senate debate and the jd vance movie was wonderful do you think ron howard sits around going like i guess i didn't quite understand what i was dealing with there room for a sequel like the wardrobe were it was interesting it's like the lawyer in the movie about the atlanta bombing right that's the same guy who was part of january 6th right it was uh yeah what's his name that's a connection I'm really understanding that you're making. Remember, he represented the Atlanta bomber. Oh, that's right. Yeah, yeah.

Richard Jewell? Yeah. But he wasn't the bomber. He was the bomber. But Richard Jewell, who was not the bomber. Not the bomber. Well, he's dead. He can't sue now.

But still, just to get it right, just for his memory. Linwood, right? Linwood. Linwood! So now suddenly that movie's a little different because you're like come on linwood yeah and anyone anyone whose full name sounds like one small town is weird so it's the take the dude off what's the fucking take elijah i don't even got to the tank the take is remember josh mandel almost started playing a 70 year old man the take is three things are true one josh mandel is a national embarrassment two josh mandel is the second worst candidate for

the republican primary jd vance is worst three josh mandel would still be a better senator than democratic candidate tim bryan oh is that a take from mike gib? It's not. I'm paying the guesses. Whose take is that? One, two, three. Hugh Hewitt. Nope. No, no, he wouldn't. It is a bad pundit, though. Now we're just into random guessing.

Okay, give us the take person. Dan McLaughlin. Baseball crank. I feel like Glenn Close should be the senator, but in that character from the J.D. Vance movie. In the full mumu. Yeah, she has to talk like that every time she's on the Senate floor. Wow.

I don't know. Baseball crank sucks. He gets three. I give that four. As much as I dislike J.D. Vance, Josh Mandel would be far worse as a senator he's a bona fide lunatic well there yeah yeah yeah i'm gonna give that um i'm only gonna do that one i'm gonna give that one politico in part because it's not it's um it's a it's a it's a it's a a

complicated take for a simple situation there you go there. There you go. All right, last take, Elijah. All right, this one's short and sweet. It's just a tweet. The real March Madness is taking place in Ukraine at the hands of Putin aggression. Oh, no. Damn it, why? Oh. Judd, why did you tweet that?

Yeah, that's it. The handle was at Judd Apatow with that trademark wit. Twitter is not what it used to be. I feel like I want to start a new Twitter account with that trademark wit. Twitter is not what it used to be. I feel like I want to start a new Twitter account where I only follow film nerds. I want to remove everyone. Now I just have hundreds of angry people.

I'm floored with that too. Should I have a completely different account just for when cats make noises that sounds like words? I need the happy Twitter space. Yeah, yeah. No, I think that's right. I think that's right. Elijah, who tweeted that?

Mark Knoller, former CBS News. I know Mark well, CBS News broadcaster. Twitter gets the best of him. That's the thing. It just breaks everyone. In fairness, rhetoric aside, it is madness

and it is taking place in March. You know, I don't enjoy the pun. I don't think it was necessary. I don't think he was trying, so I'm giving it one because I don't think he was trying to spit out a bad take there. Judd, would you ever bring yourself to tweet a photo

of a chalk drawing that says in a world of Putin's, be a Zelensky? In a world of Putin? In a world of Putin's be a Zelensky in a world of Putin in a world of Putin's be a Zelensky do you find that inspiring it makes me want to kill myself yeah I think this is this raises a question that I keep thinking about which is maybe humor should be eliminated no I'm not against it it's something look all humor no I'm saying I No, I'm not against it. It's something, look. No, all humor. No, I'm saying, I'm not joking.

I feel like, do you think that we don't actually get to the root of everything we should know and care about? And do we not inform ourselves because Putin on a horse becomes a joke for five years? And then we don't really go, oh no, he's the devil. And he's preparing mass slaughter and we made him you know like a funny villain we've had experience with that here yes well kim jong-un kim jong-il right similar deal the sunglasses the hair the outfits you laugh it off

instead of saying oh you know they're killing millions of people we need i mean obviously we have to process things and we need some of that. But I do, when things get really bad, you're like, we probably should have informed people about what's actually happening right now. Well, Judd Apatow came on our show to ask us to try to- Shut the door behind him.

Judd's trying to cancel humor here on Puts in America. I'm canceling myself. I'm taking myself out of the equation. You're just going to do it. The book is sicker in the head. That's my final project before I leave the business. Humor has let us down.

You're going to do your one hour photo. You're going to do your insomnia. You're going to do your serious kick. It's time. This is 50 is going to be incredibly serious. Very sad. I'm going to go to a place that no one wants me to go. You know, I consider myself you know i always say i consider myself the michael jordan of stand-up comedy because i'm really for baseball for

baseball because no one knows why i do it i i won't stop and i'm not good at it can i ask you a question another question uh how proud were you as a dad when you got the text from Maude saying that she was in euphoria? Let me tell you, anytime your child gets a job, you're like, okay, employment. And then, well, the important call is I play the nice girl. Oh, then you're okay. The bad call is, hey, dad, next season, they've decided my character takes a turn. And then that's where you get you get concerned but have you seen it have you watched it have you gotten through it all not yet

okay it they really kind of pull it off i mean if you watch the two years i watched the first season and i'm trying to steal myself for the second season because it's a lot it's pretty remarkable what he did if you look at it as a two-year story okay uh it's really first season was incredible i mean i want to it's just a you know you gotta write headspace for it you know well as a parent i mean anytime you see that but then i think about what we were doing at sias at high what were we doing uh what were you guys doing nintendo 64 shitty weed i was stealing people's uh radar detectors i think you and i had a different experience i think you and i had a different couple of years at sayaz in high school yeah i don't you were you on the debate team uh no but i i was the president of the school radio station

so i about nerded you my friend yeah you did yeah and you have yes and you will i will continue to uh judd apatow thank you for joining pod Pod Save America here in studio. We appreciate it. Everyone go see The Bubble. Bye, sicker in the head. And thank you also to Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy, for joining us. We did have another serious guest who has already canceled humor. Is this better or worse than your SmartList interview? Do you know that he was the consultant? He worked for Netflix.

When we made The Bubble, when I had to make calls with the cast to say how do we do this safely dr murthy did it that is who we spoke to wow because you can't ignore him and he's like it's not real he's wonderful and we didn't have one case the entire year wow so he that was his advice. Hey, if you don't know, it can't hurt you. That's Dr. Murthy for you. That's a tip from Dr. Murthy. Yes. In between his stints as Surgeon General, don't test.

It's best not to know. All right, everyone. We'll talk to you Thursday. Bye. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Andy Gardner-Bernstein. Our producer is Haley Muse, and Olivia Martinez is our associate producer.

It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis sound engineer the show. Thanks to Tanya Sominator, Sandy Gerard, Hallie Kiefer, Ari Schwartz, Andy Taft, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim, and Amelia Montooth. Our episodes are uploaded as videos at youtube.com slash crookedmedia.