In1995, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers and his equally unrepentant terrorist wife, Bernardine Dohrn, hosted a “coffee” in their home to help launch Barack Obama’s first campaign for the Illinois state senate. But it was back in 1969 that Ayers founded his Weather Underground terrorist group. Obama was only eight at the time. So, of course, how could Obama know anything about Ayers?

Clearly in 1995, at age 34, there was a lot that Obama didn’t know. He obviously had no knowledge of the Miracle Mets World Series victory (they bested the Cubs—one of the teams in Obama’s and Ayers’ neighborhood—for the pennant). He didn’t know that Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon. And he had no clue of the splendid time had by all at Woodstock. Obama couldn’t have known any of this because all of these events occurred in 1969—when Obama was only eight.

Someone ought to get him one of those Time-Life videos. He’s got a lot of catching up to do.

So when William Ayers was actively planning to destroy a good part of the United States, Obama was only eight. And though he may have been a precocious lad, he most likely did not have detailed plans for blowing up the Pentagon on his Etch-A-Sketch. Lets’ face it, young Obama didn’t know the difference between Mr. Ayers and Mr. Rogers—both guys "in the neighborhood". Anyway, that’s Obama’s story, and he’s sticking to it.

But in 1995, Obama was 34. It was at that relatively advanced age that he began working closely with Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. And he worked with him for five years, distributing $160 million in grants to public schools. So that would make Obama around 39 when the funding ran out, primarily because the Annenberg Challenge was found to be competency-challenged. See Sol Stern’s article in City Journal.

Some might argue that maturity and wisdom arrive at 40. Yet one would think a smart fellow like Obama, even at 39, would realize that he’d been spending the past five years palling around with terrorists (as Sarah Palin so eloquently phrased it).

Sex Education. Yawn. How’d that ever get back in the news? Oh yeah, because Sarah Palin is not a proponent of sex ed programs, but she does advocate abstinence-only education.

This was a revelation to the mainstream media and fellow-traveling Democrats. It was nothing less than manna from heaven, or more appropriately for them, manna from a government grant. The opportunity to mockingly denounce abstinence-only education set hearts racing throughout America’s newsrooms in much the same way ambulance sirens stimulated John Edwards, at least until he met Rielle Hunter.

But why all the fuss? It’s no surprise that sex education is not your grandfather’s biology class, where titillating discussions on zygotes and gametes abounded. And as a hot-button issue, it’s about as provocative as hula hoops—and just as trendy. However, the media’s preoccupation with Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter’s sex education, or lack thereof, offers the opportunity to question sex education’s relevance in today’s classroom.

With school budgets strained, why offer sex education when any kid can simply attend a Madonna concert, and quickly be brought up to speed on the latest trends and techniques?

Is it really necessary to funnel millions to schools so that they can offer what might be deemed the Nike curriculum: Just do it.  How difficult is it to adhere to its one basic tenet:
Birds do it, bees do it, use a condom when you do it.

So what about abstinence? Is it a good idea to use school time to hammer home the message of “don’t do it?” Of course, to be effective, this message must be reinforced with compelling arguments that shed light on how an activity that doesn’t even require rigorous training or experience, and is so popular and appealing, must be eschewed until at least the day the couple registers at Bad, Bath and Beyond. No one says it's an easy sell, but it's worth a try at the cost of a few cold showers.

Surprisingly, while schools have no problem discussing sex in graphic detail, the A word is taboo. Objections to offering abstinence as an alternative to sexual promiscuity are well known. Basically the most persuasive argument is: why bother? When even educated fleas do it, educated teenagers surely will find a way.

Yet there are instances when parents enjoy great success enforcing a strict abstinence code. Take driving, for example. Just about the time those notorious hormones kick in, kids begin to lust for their family car. Night and day they fantasize about the joys of putting peddle to the metal. Nevertheless, they’re instructed to control their urges, and abstain from getting behind the wheel until they are old enough and mature enough to obtain a license. It’s never a matter of, well okay, as long as you use a seat belt. And by and large, teens do adhere to this policy of abstinence. Woe to the teen caught in a compromising position with Dad’s car keys.

With this in mind, serious consideration should be given to deferring Condom Appreciation 101. No doubt, as with any public policy change, there will be some unintended consequences. Farmers may see a drop in their standard of living as they no longer will be able to unload surplus zucchinis and bananas. Of course, there’s always an upside. An abundant supply of zucchinis and bananas may encourage us to increase our daily intake of ratatouille and smoothies. Aside from the nutritional benefits, this is probably how God intended things to be. Providing bountiful harvests to serve as mere side dishes to a main meal of latex could not have been part of the master plan.