There was a time, though, a blip on the screen of time, that the Washington Times served the public interest in a big way. That day was June 29, 1989, when the Times's investigative reporter Paul Rodriguez and editor-in-chief Wes Pruden blindsided the Establishment with a front-page article that, for a few days, would cause all-over body-blisters upon homosexual and paedophillic men in the upper echelon of Washington D.C. culture and politics. You remember.

Or do you? And if not, how might it be that something this explosive just slipped past you? (Easy answer: After a hot-breaking story, Washington Times did a very lazy followup (albeit, most probably under weight of tremendous pressure), and none of the other D.C. newspapers--or any other major paper in the nation--ran it in the first place. The story was quashed, stomped-upon.)

In sum, and for reasons that will need to be answered by Paul Rodriguez and Wes Pruden, a homosexual call-boy ring had been operating in D.C. for some time, and through an investigation of credit card fraud and sundry other fiscal malfeasance, the FBI was called in to investigate. What it uncovered was too ugly and affected too many important men for to be allowed to gain any traction in the Media or the public eye. So, the story disappeared. Fortunately, in this Internet age, nothing disappears for long.

Questions for Paul Rodriguez:

1) In what manner were you first alerted to the homosexual call-boy ring? When you picked up the phone for the first time on this soon-to-be and short-lived story, who was on the other line? And after that first phone call, who else weighed in with information?

2) How did you convince editor Wesley Pruden to run the story at all, nevermind on the front page? These were prominent D.C. figures who were (or should have been) exposed; and George Bush's White House was involved in after-hours parading of youngish boys down the sacred office hallways. Wasn't Mr. Pruden concerned that the Times would suffer a bit of heat on this?

3) God bless Mr. Pruden for placing it square on the front page. But damn him for retreating from it in-toto. How was the decision made for to abandon the story, which the Times did do. Specifically, what persons (by name, please--it's a long list, so take your time...) convinced Mr. Pruden and yourself that it was neither in either of your best interests, nor in the interest of the Times, to go forward with further investigation or publication of the call-boy story?

3a) How did you, personally, feel--when the story was yanked from you? How do you feel today about having a star story pulled from your pen, told to cease and desist on something so rare and brave? It must hurt.

4) Mr. Pruden issued an inline disclaimer in the original Times publication, that the Times would not be releasing all names of persons involved in the homosexual call-boy ring; that it wasn't the Times' s intention "to titillate." OK. On one hand, that's an honorable thing to write. On the other hand, since local newspapers print regularly the police docketed names of persons arrested in their geographical region of Prostitution; Driving Under the Influence; Robbery/Burglary, Shoplifting, etc., why weren't We The People allowed to see every name of every scumbag who was either arrested in or linked definitively (by security cameras or with signatures on their credit cards, or in any other tangible way) to this debacle?

The public was deprived of knowing who amongst "our leaders" was involved in prostitution--which is still a crime, in every jurisdiction other than parts of Nevada.

5) Mr. Rodriguez, you had a whole lot of hard-data information from FBI and other police details, and from credit card companies and probably from security cameras--and, lucky for you: otherwise you'd be six-feet under by now. So, you stayed alive and ended up for a long while at the Times's sister magazine Insight. Where you never again touched the story in question. But since you've recently resigned from Insight, you're now a free man.

So: Who were involved? We already know about Charles K. Dutcher, former associate director of presidential personnel, Reagan administration; and of Paul R. Balach, then-Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole's political personnel liaison to the White House. They confessed. We know also about former Republican Congressman Robert Bauman (Maryland, 2 terms), who sought not to run for reelection after being caught bending the rheostat in bathhouses with The Boys; not so coincidentally, Mr. Charles Dutcher had been an aide to Congressman Bauman (I bet he had). [Note: Bob Bauman, who is also now in the private sector, should also step forward and tell all he knows about the call-boy ring; as an outed homosexual, he is also remained a stalward small-government conservative over the past two decades. So, bravo, Mr. Bauman; now, please consider doing the right thing now.]

With the "Jeff Gannon" affair and his 14 night's stay in the White House (among 200 appearances there) blossoming; and what with Ken Mehlman, Republican National Committee Chairman, refusing to answer questions directly as to his sexual orientation or of his relationship, if any, to "Jeff Gannon"; and with eye-witnesses having spotted Karl Rove and White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan at gay bars and parties involving homosexual sex activities, this story is not going to go away. It's a New Era in communications; bloggers can't be made to shut up.

So far, most of the attention to the "Jeff Gannon" situation has come from the Left; notably, "conservative" publications don't want to touch it--for fear that it will somehow taint George W. Bush...as the events of June 29, 1989 would have tainted George H. W. Bush. The apple never falls far from the tree, as it were.