Something I’ve noticed over the years is that liberals are increasingly unable to notice when they are being satirized. One thing that’s going on is that progressives simply assume that everybody involved in the making of popular culture must be a fellow progressive. They are artists, right? If they are satirists, obviously they must on our side because they are undermining the Power Structure, and we don’t yet have quite as much Power as we’d like, so that’s how we know that every person in the Media must be on our side. Or something.

For example, I never got around to watching Tina Fey’s sit-com 30 Rock until last year. Much to my surprise, I discovered that the last several seasons of the show were pretty much the sit-com of my dreams. I hadn’t heard that, presumably because nobody in the chattering classes had even noticed. Tina Fey made fun of Sarah Palin in 2008, so she must be on the side of all that is Good and Appropriate forever, right?

For example, here is somebody in The Atlantic expressing his disappointment that Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar isn’t quite as effective Climate Change propaganda as he had hoped, that while its heart is in the right place, it still needed a little script doctoring to punch up The Message.

Interstellar: Good Space Film, Bad Climate-Change Parable

A story about looking for a new world is more exciting than a movie about saving an ailing one.

NOAH GITTELL NOV 15 2014, 10:15 AM ET There is already plenty of evidence of America’s alarming inability to reckon with climate change, but perhaps none is more surprising than this: Even Hollywood doesn’t get it. The entertainment industry is rightly thought of as a haven for progressive thought, but in the last few years, while it has made big-budget blockbusters about income inequality (The Hunger Games), the dangers of a corporate government (The Lego Movie), and the surveillance state (Captain America: The Winter Soldier), Hollywood has yet to adequately address the issue of climate change. … But no matter how you feel about Interstellar as a piece of entertainment, one thing should be agreed upon: As a climate-change parable, it fails. … Climate change is never mentioned by name in the film, but writer/director Christopher Nolan uses its imagery to define the terms of his story…. And so it stands to reason that whatever planet the humans in Interstellar end up colonizing, they will destroy it just as surely as a virus destroys its host. … Of course, filmmakers have a right—or even a duty—to fantasize, but a small tweak could made Interstellar’s message much more relevant to the present day. … For those who care about climate change, the film feels like a missed opportunity.

Uh, you know, actually, “Interstellar” brutally satirizes the most prominent global warming scientist Dr. Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, making a “Dr. Mann” who lies repeatedly about a planet’s temperature the Bad Guy in the movie.

I pointed this out to Mark Steyn, who is being sued by Dr. Mann, so he went to see the movie.

Here’s Steyn’s review of Interstellar, which he finds reminds him of something Bruce Charlton said.

Hail to You offers a metaphorical interpretation of the “blight” blighting America in the opening 45 minutes.

Keep in mind that Interstellar is an erratic movie. I enjoyed it thoroughly, but it was always on the verge of turning into a bad movie, although it never did. (Here’s my review of it in Taki’s Magazine.)

The abundance of material might have been better suited to the relaxed pace of a miniseries, but Christopher Nolan doesn’t do relaxed. All of his movies are pushed beyond anybody’s comfort zone. For example, The Dark Knight, the second of his Batman movies, reaches a satisfying conclusion around the two hour mark. But then, just as I’m grabbing my coat and getting ready to turn on my phone, completely happy that I got my money’s worth, Nolan starts up what seems like the next movie, the third installment, and we see about 45 minutes of that.