Dealing with THAT holiday issue . . .

As our first Christmas as parents approached this holiday season, my wife and I have been thinking about how we want to deal the Santa Claus issue.  The decision is a delicate one, thanks in no small part to the diversity of the popular options.  There are, of course, the two extremes.  On one hand is the full-on, red-clad, bearded Santa with a weight problem and a team of magic ruminants.  Despite his husky waistline, magic Santa finds his way down chimneys of all shapes and sizes but manages to never burn himself on the odd glowing ember that doubtless remains in some homes from a hearty Christmas Eve fire.  He also carries a bag big enough (and rides in a sleigh big enough) to hold gifts for each and every child in the world.  Well, for each "nice" child, anyway.  Despite some blatant logic gaps, this Santa Claus option has worked well enough for many people over the years.

The other extreme is, obviously, No Santa.  While this option lacks the logic problems and seeming implausibilities that plague Santa, it is far from clean and simple, for one primary reason.  No one wants his kid to be the one that pontificates to his first-grade class:

"Well, my Daddy says that Santa Claus is not real.  Moreover, my Daddy says that the concept of Santa Claus as portrayed particularly in the United States is both illogical and implausible.  Flying reindeer?  Come on, people!  Yes, we're only six, but are we idiots?  Squeezing that fat butt down a chimney?  Have you looked at how wide your chimney is?  Two words, three syllables - lo-gic gap."

I do not (and should not) have to say anymore for you to get the idea that while No Santa might technically be closer to absolute truth, its complication arises from contradiction of socially validated knowledge.

So neither Santa nor No Santa are the ideal option.  There is certainly a spectrum of compromise between the two as well as a host of new alternatives such as The Elf on the Shelf, which some friends have used with success.  I think, though, that ultimately I will formulate a response that takes the high road on the personal application of Santa principles to our child(ren).  The response would also give my kid the chance to show that he is not only aware of relevant political and social issues but also prematurely burdened by the problems plaguing global society.  The response begins with a simple yet powerful foundational assumption.

Santa finally lost the battle against exponential population growth.  I imagine this discussion going something like this:

"Look, son, the reason Santa can't visit our house has nothing to do with you.  I promise.  The explanation is simple.  Do you know what the global population is?  As of December 22, 2009, it was estimated to be 6,791,500,000.  And in 2006, almost 30% of that population was under the age of 15.  So, that's over 2 billion children that Santa has to visit . . .  

The Naughty List?  Does Santa even use that thing anymore?  I don't think so.  

No . . . no . . . look, that's 2 billion children to visit in one night.  And those are old statistics.  No magic reindeer, not even with extra rocket propulsion (see Elf), can cover that much air space in one night.  Christmas's long night due to its proximity to the winter solstice doesn't even help Santa that much anymore.  

What's that?  You ask if Santa doesn't use the Naughty List, how does he choose who to visit?  Hmmm, well, it's, you know, a variety of factors.  

Are they equally weighted or a balancing test?  It depends.  Why don't you ask your Mom.  All I know is that the overpopulation of the earth is causing dire problems beyond nutritive food shortages, water crises, over-exploitation of resources, and climate change.  

Yes, you can still write a letter to Santa and wish him luck with the population problem.  

And, yes, we can CC the President as well."

That foundation sets the stage for use of any number deciding factors that have absolutely nothing to do with a child's personal responsibility, such as:

(Aside: Are you starting to see what kind of grave you dig for yourself with this whole Santa business?)

Santa only visits children in countries that are taking affirmative action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  I thought about going with a "Santa only visits children who are actively reducing their carbon footprints" explanation, but that only creates another incarnation of the Naughty-Nice List, and that's not what I am looking for.  But putting the burden on national governments relieves the pressure of assigning a Naughty or Nice designation to your own child.

Its not unlike this Saturday Night Live Blue State Santa cartoon.  In this scenario, children suffer from the ignorance and poor judgment of their jurisdiction's voters.  Their own naughty behavior, if we would even call it that, has nothing to do with Santa's absenteeism.  There are a host of people for children to blame for Kris Kringle's truancy, aside from themselves, of course.  Government officials, voters, even parents are fair game.

Other versions of this Santa explanation could revolve around progressive health care schemes, transportation policy, etc.  The choices are endless, you can pick your favorite pet issue, and you can foster some socially conscious discussion around the Christmas dinner table.  Win-win-win.

Fortunately for me (and my son), he's not old enough this Christmas to require a Santa explanation.  That gives me another 11 months or so to iron out the wrinkles.  Or to come up with something better entirely.  One or the other.