But there are certain global parts of Pollack’s movement that really irritate me. First off, it’s the inclusive “us” thing when referring to his “real” neighborhood’s woes. Drug dealing, violence, underfunded schools, etc., sure, those are real problems, but they’re problems he CHOSE to make part of his life.

Deciding you want to lead an edgy urban life is vastly different than having to live in the hood because your family immigrated from Central America and you’re working three minimum-wage jobs. Pollock almost certainly went to college, he’s got a book deal and he’s making money — he could easily move to a lovely town with wonderful schools any time he desires.

Obviously, he chooses not to, which is fine, but you can’t then come back and look down in distain on Brooks because he had the gall to live in a conventional neighborhood and doesn’t understand Pollack’s “real” problems, and conversely, it’s disrespectful to count yourself among the people trapped in your neighborhood by poverty when in reality you’re just a guest; it’s like touring Alcatraz and saying you empathize with convicts on death row.

The other gripe I have — and it’s epidemic out here — is what I’ll term Something More Syndrome. By this I mean, everything someone does must have another level which gives it meaning and importance.

For instance, the whole AlternaDad thing. The shows, the clothes, the lifestyle — it’s fun. It’s what he likes to do. But it has to somehow be MORE. It’s about bringing down the corporate music complex. It’s about sticking it to the NeoCons. It’s about non-conformity, breaking down stereotypes, freedom, art, this, that… whatever.

But it’s really about the stuff he’s enjoyed doing since he was in his 20s and continuing to do that, only with a kid.

So if he wants to live a hipster lifestyle with youngster in tow, fine. But, for love of god, can he just admit that’s ALL he’s doing? He’s not lobbying Congress to change our foreign policy, he’s not fighting oppression with his hermanos in the barrio, he’s just keeping the party going as long as he possibly can. The end.

And there, in only 40,000 words, is my beef.

I’ve identified with a great deal in Pollack’s writing (I check out his blog daily). He may overstate being held down by the Bushies. However, there is a lot to the idea of how the decision to reject the suburbs in favor of living in actual cities inflicts some hardships on a family. I live in a marginal neighborhood in a big city with actual economic and social diversity (not always a good thing – but always interesting). All of the parents I live around are working very hard to improve schools and neighborhoods rather than packing up for 30 miles out of town to Vanilla-land the second a kid reaches school age. None of us are fabulously or even reasonably wealthy, which would make things mush easier (i.e., just put the kids in private schools). I don’t take my daughter to Of Montreal shows, but I want to live close enough to the places where those kinds of bands play so that I can go see them on a school night. At the end of the day, those are the things that matter to me.

Maybe it is selective reading of Pollock and only absorbing those parts that read like I wrote them. A lot of what he writes about seems to relate enough to my daily existence that I give him the benefit of the doubt. In my humble opinion, the Brooks piece only points to the cartoon-ish aspects of parents in our demographic, which, in fairness, are what get written about everywhere else.

And the reason for this is captured beautifully in Pollack’s response, which I find to be a big ‘ol steaming bowl of pretentious, condescending, dishonest bullshit presented as the earnest fightsong of an everyman trying to take on the system.

Puuuu-lease. God, where to start. First off, if you’re an upper middle-class urbanite, while you’re not getting the full benefit of the Bushies, you’re not hurtin’ that bad. You’re not picking tomatoes in Salinas or pushing a broom in state hospital at 3:30 a.m., so please don’t lump yourself in with people who are really getting screwed as you sip your $5 organic raspberry beet juice; if it’s the people vs. the man, trust me — whether you know it or not — you’re the man.

But this is a mild irritation compared to Pollack’s larger point, which is that the AlternaDad movement is solely about freedom and choices and emapathy and gettin’ by in Bush America; hipness is merely a by-product.

Which would be great were it not completely, obviously, laughably false. AlternaDad is about one thing and one thing only: Being cool. It’s about dressing Junior in cool clothes, exposing him to cool music, going to cool places, eating cool food and being sympathetic to cool causes for the sake of being cool. Period.

And there’s nothing wrong with that. If you’ve spent most of your adult life living a certain lifestyle, it would follow that you’d like to continue doing so post-stork.

But just ADMIT it, man. To imply that dragging little Django to a Deefhoof show is some noble calling or that you’re somehow shooting a bird to the NeoCons by dressing little Harper in a $40 American Apparel t-shirt is just flat-out stupid.

So while I hate to say it, even a guy batting .100 hits one out of the park once in a while, and it looks like Brooks got on base this time.

Ugh, even that non-word: Alternadad. Makes my skin crawl.