Last week Johnny Hildo wrote this as a part of his/her column for the Toledo City Paper:
Then there is the case of Councilman Joe Birmingham, bellicose first-term representative from Point Place and son of North End fixture John Birmingham. Joe allegedly tied one on and got physical with his pregnant wife, banging on the door after she locked his drunken arse out. She called 911. Police told him to go home, of all places, and he instead went to his daddy’s house to sleep it off. Joe’s sense of entitlement must have mushroomed, as police followed the stereotyped practice of downplaying domestic violence. The sad recent case in Fulton County is illustrative, and our hope is that it isn’t repeated. Time will tell whether we have heard the last from the frighteningly unrepentant Birmingham, whose story received none of the notoriety of McConnell-Hancock’s relatively harmless gaffe. But, local pols, like Icarus, could learn from these examples. Hubris kills.
For some reason the online version of the Toledo City Paper never changed this week except for the Cover Story. So, while I was at in my opinion one of the best Toledo Laundromat's yesterday I picked up this week's edition and saw letters from both Joe Birmingham and from his brother, Robert C.W. Birmingham that take Hildo to task, specifically on the issue of the claim that Joe Birmingham got physical with his pregnant wife and the overall tone of what was written.
The Editor of the Toledo City Paper included a Retraction which in part stated:
The report contains no allegations that he 'got physical' or 'banged on the door.' Also Hildo wrote "police followed the stereotyped practice of downplaying domestic violence." Again, there has been no allegation of physical violence - better wording would have been "The police followed the stereotyped practice of downplaying a domestic dispute."
I wrote about this situation with the main focus being on was Joe driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. It was not clear from the Toledo Blade report how he got from his home to his father's home, which we discovered he walked. While the question of how did Joe get from where he was drinking to his home was never answered, I think in all fairness since there were suggestions made in the comments of that discussion that some physical violence had occurred that it be pointed out that does not appear to be the case.
I'd suggest picking up a copy if you want to read the letters and retraction in full, or if there is something specific you want to know ask in the comments, as I have the print copy here.
Keeping Your Belongings Safe Through Storms
-
Years ago almost every house was built with some sort of shutter, whether
designed as storm shutters or for security. Granted, most windows during
those d...
13 years ago
16 comments:
I'm not a big fan of anonymous sniping yet some of Hildo's stuff has been better written and more accurate. Which is why I thought the retraction was important to point out. This has also given me a few clues as to who I think the mystery Hildo might be.
If I discover I'm right? I'll be sure to let you all know.
:-)
I know who Hildo is too.
Did you know before this or was this situation the hint for you that it was for me as to who it was?
:-)
They have had some good cover pieces, the one on East Toledo was very well done and so was the one on South End. Most of their cover pieces are to me worthy of reading. I do agree Hildo went too far on this one taking liberty with the facts as we knew them.
I read every week and there are times when I have found out about a new restaurant or an event that I didn't see featured elsewhere. I understand their desire to have the political/satire part - it does get people talking but it'd be nice to see that aspect a bit more fact oriented.
I appreciate the comments from those of you who know me. As a public servent, I am available to anyone who is interested in the truth. Thanks, Joe Birmingham
Joe, thank you for commenting. I hope you continue to visit as well as join in if you feel a topic is one you'd like to discuss.
Hildo...your identity and welfare are safe...no clues in last edition. No thanks due to JB. No clues, ever given by the master...one must know you to see what is truly there.
Do you agree LD ?
I guess I disagree anonymous, for me it was this last column that gave me the clues to who I thought Hildo was. If I'm correct, this person is not a public official, they have made clear who they support and they participate at times on local blogs. No, I don't think it's LD.
:-)
of course it is not LD...but I believe LD is correct.
and much as your skill at deduction may be strong...not on this one
Then if I am wrong? I stand corrected, and it's probably a good thing I decided to not say who I thought it was.
:-)
Lisa,
Toledo City Paper, in thier apparent cowardice, failed to post the letters forum online from last week's paper.
If it's possible, could you summarize what was said?
Sincerely appreciate it.
Brian,
Joe took issue with the implication that he was abusive to his wife and questioned the sense of entitlement claim made by Hildo.
His brother Robert, took issue with Joe being called "bellicose" and the implication that Joe had gotten physical with his wife. Robert also stated the claim that Joe was unrepentant was false and that he felt Joe had apologized to those who mattered. Robert also stated he felt the reason why there was no comparison to what happened with KMH was because Joe did not ask for nor receive preferential treatment. That "married couples do stupid things sometimes but that doesn't necessarily make it newsworthy." He pointed out accurately that the only reason why the police call was even a story was because Joe is an elected official.
Robert's letter was the longer of the two. It's too long to type in full but to give you a clearer idea of the tone, here is Robert's closing statement:
"Whether or not Joe has received enough negative notoriety to suit your 'journalistic' desires is totally irrelevant."
LOL Kate
Lisa, thank you very much. I appreciate you.
I have to admit since seeing the demise of the political forum on Toledo Talk, Hildo seems to have the only real information going on on 22.
Granted the malicious and cowardly attack on Joe, whom I do admire for his taking the high road, is not something worthy of a political column, Hildo has his finger on the pulse.
I do wonder, does LD know who Hildo is by sharing lunch while stalking...err...staking out the Democrat's Headquarters?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Kate, something else where you are like me, neither one of us likes to self-promote however, it takes someone pretty damned on the ball to be able to have pulled off what you have in creating your Toledo Politicians site. So I appreciate you as well as everyone that has made this blog what it is. Without you guys it would be just me blogging to myself.
:-)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, You're both gems. :-)
Now, who is Johnny Hildo?
From the first, I've always pictured Johnnie as a female.
(not trying to be abusive, just intensely curious.)
(Lisa and Kate are both diamonds in the (not so) rough.)
Just in case anyone is curious, I have pasted below the full text of the e-mail I sent to the City Paper after Hildo went after my brother Joe. Incidentally, the City Paper never asked for, and I therefore never granted, permission for them to print my letter, much less chop it up and then headline it with the whiny, "Quit picking on my brother". All in all, just a very irresponsible hatchet job they did, all the way around.
Robert C.W. Birmingham
Living in Toledo, I have become accustomed to a certain editorial bias as it relates to our local newspaper, but even they do not usually burrow to the depths to which you have descended as evidenced by the article below. Since I am the brother of one of the targets of your "journalism," I will focus only on the scurrilous lies, distortions, half-truths and innuendo specific to your comments about him.
You start with the comment "Coming up the hard way is the best way to go", clearly implying that the people about to be targeted surely must have had it easy along the way, giving them a false and/or heightened sense of self-importance. Oh, really? Joe Birmingham grew up on Manhattan St, next to Joe E. Brown Park, the 4th of 11 children. As a young child, he shared a bedroom at one point with 5 of his brothers. After the family moved to a bigger house when Joe was starting 4th grade, Joe still had to share the ONE bathroom in the house with his parents and 10 siblings. Yeah, Joe was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, completely detached from the "common folk".
You then begin the personal insults by describing Joe as "bellicose", though you have no idea whatsoever about Joe's personality traits. I can think of many adjectives that would accurately describe my brother, but bellicose is not among them. As to referring to my father as a "North End fixture", I can only guess at your intent, but I feel safe in saying that it was not intended in a complimentary fashion.
And here's where it gets really good. You preface your ad hominem attack by using the qualifier "allegedly", as if that shields you journalistically from the bilge that is about to spew forth. Joe "got physical with his pregnant wife"? On what facts do you base this fictional account? Or do the facts not figure into your story-telling at all? There are absolutely no allegations whatsoever that Joe "got physical" with his wife, allegedly or otherwise. Your inclusion of these words in your imagined account of the events rises to the level of libel, in my opinion.
The phrase "he instead went to his daddy's house to sleep it off" carries with it an obvious attempt at ridicule, while ignoring the facts (there's that pesky word again) that it was the officers there that night that encouraged this course of action, and that "daddy's house" is about 7 houses down the street. What would you have had him do, drive to a friend's house, or sleep on the street?
You then shift your focus briefly by attacking the police, saying that they practice "downplaying domestic violence," which indubitably ballooned Joe's "sense of entitlement". What unmitigated rubbish! I know it is standard liberal practice to portray the police in a negative light, but in order to make the accusation valid, shouldn't you have at least a shred of established fact to back up your smear? Joe's "sense of entitlement"? Joe never uttered the phrase "Do you know who I am?" or even identified himself as a member of Council. As a matter of fact, had he done so, I assure you that none in his circle of family and friends would have supported that posture. We were raised by our "North End fixture" father and mother with much better values than that.
It just keeps getting worse. You astonishingly inject the horrific tragedy in Fulton County, where a deranged individual stabbed his wife and murdered their two young children, as though there is even the slightest parallel between what happened there and what happened with Joe and his wife. I realize that many in the media love to use death to further their political objectives, but this might be a new low. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
You finish off your transparently political attack by calling Joe "frighteningly unrepentant". How in the world do you arrive at this conclusion? Because he hasn't apologized to YOU? Joe has apologized to his wife for this embarrassing incident, and he has apologized to his family. I am sure he has also asked God's forgiveness. I know that many in the media think very highly of themselves, but Joe has apologized to those that matter, and you are not in that group.
As to your comment that Joe's story received "none of the notoriety of McConnell-Hancock's relatively harmless gaffe", I would only conclude with the fact that there only was a "story" at all because Joe is an elected official. Married couples do stupid things sometimes, but that doesn't necessarily make it newsworthy. Joe didn't ask for, nor receive, preferential treatment, (which does NOT constitute a "harmless gaffe" when it comes from an elected official, in my opinion) and, in fact, has dealt with a great deal of personal embarrassment because of his actions. Whether or not Joe has received enough negative notoriety to suit your "journalistic" desires is utterly irrelevant. This is about Joe and his family, and your blatant attempt to elevate this incident to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors is truly pathetic.
In the future, I hope you and your family never get vilified and attacked by your journalistic brethren should you make a mistake, but perhaps it would be beneficial in the long-term, if you then fully realized how much damage reckless words can inflict.
Robert C.W. Birmingham
Post a Comment