Linda Atkins’ Top 10 accomplishments as City Council member

Linda Atkins, she’s so good at her job! So progressive, so stylish, so poised, so reasonable, so…so…

We’re at a loss for words to truly capture the essence of her success as a council member, mostly because the far-reaching effects of her groundbreaking policy stances are nigh impossible to describe. Of course, actions speak far louder than words, so perhaps it’s best for us to stop writing about her and instead give you all a rundown of her achievements.










And finally…


Wow! Great job Linda! Sad thing is, we might actually miss her when compared to the folks who are rumored to run for her seat. Anyway, in order to commemorate her service, THC commissioned a painting in the classic style to preserve her accomplishments for all posterity. What do you think?


Also starring Eureka as the murdered children, and all the people who Linda was pissy at because they wouldn’t do the dumbass things she wanted them to do as the guy who’s like “WTF Linda why’d you do that?”


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Linda Atkins’ Top 10 accomplishments as City Council member

  1. Just Watchin says:

    Starting the clock to see how long it takes Looney Man On Bike to comment…..


  2. jmms says:

    You have for sure captured the essence of her success. There are a few folks from the bridge district who would like to have a word with her.


    • LMOB says:

      Peek-a-boo: I hope you are still around to see what the real reason was for THC’s Miss Enviro.
      Since then they have made clear that they have strong political differences with two of the five contestants, and you don’t have to delve deep into the comments to find fundamental differences with a third.

      Was that really a light hearted – sweet contest or part of a deep and dark undercurrent that exists in our society and has forever.

      It has still been less than 100 years since women had the right to vote in this country. I understand that nither THC nor JW want us to go back to the bad old days, but does that mean we are also all beyond using gender negative to further a political position?

      Did you catch the “Sweetie” in a previous comment zone when Natalynne spent or hours of her time to reach out to THC and his readers?

      And where do you begin with a post like this for Councilmember Atkins? If we begin with THC’s misogyny from previous posts then we omit the obvious lies of this post.

      The truth is that Linda, and I have not been on the same page as her throughout this process, has been a if not the leader of our current houseless eviction process. Agree or disagree, she and two other leaders heartily endorsed by the local Democratic Central Committee have taken action that has changed forever what everyone agrees were unwanted conditions at the Devil’s Playground. That is just the tip of the iceberg of Linda’s accomplishments.

      Peek-a-boo, you may be more inclined to buy into THC political philosophies than my own (or not). What isn’t OK with me or many others is the use of personal attacks (including those, however disguised, against one’s gender) as a basis to maintain an economic (disguised as political) status-quo.

      I hope my writings here would have at least put a seed of doubt in your mind (or others) about the value, and more importantly, intentions of something like a “Miss Enviro” contest.

      Buying a beefcake calendar in private and publishing a Miss Enviro contest are two completely different things. It’s the difference between our shared commons and our private lives. Both of these are critical to our lives as people in this community. Sometimes when we conflate the two, both spheres suffer.

      THC is fine with that, as long as it helps to elect or maintain the leadership of more people like those whose photo-shopped faces are seen less frequently.


      • Henchman Of Justice says:


        When it has to do with Natalie reaching out,


        look who she reaches out to……not people with pinpoint, on point questions or comments that chafe the respondent to such the degree that a real answer becomes ubba ubba incriminating, so respondents deflect, misrepresent, etc… same ole, same ole local grass roots bullshittin’…….whats new.


    • LMOB says:

      Here is my number: (707) 496-5311. Please leave some respectful words about yourself and others you know would like to see for someone who would like to represent the bridge district. You should know upfront that my focus will be those working and living in this district because I think these are the people and values that need a greater voice in government. Remember, prioritizing does not mean exclusion of other values or interests.


      • LMOB says:

        This was meant as a reply to jmms and now Richard Furman who posted while I was composing this. BTW, as JW likes to promote, my name is Jon Yalcinkaya and I plan to run to continue the amazing job Linda has done representing our ward.


      • Henchman Of Justice says:

        By implying only a boogey bogey subset of human slaves and values needs a greater voice …….. (workers like lawyers, gubbamint, bankers, progressive developers (Trail, Park, infrastructure hypocrisy whores, etc… need no voice)

        Based upon the sentence structure……


        Exclusion by unequalized priority (priority means who exactly gets assistance, and who does not),


        What a yahoo, name only “boogey bogey ghosts for now”, but proclaim exclusion is not a result of prioritization that focuses solely on the values and interests of the boogey people clan”.

        Since when on Planet Dingleberry does only boogey people dingleberry dung count as the only type of dingleberry dung that gets prioritized? Damn, “working and/or living covers the full spectrum” of boogey people who need a greater voice, even though certain people need no greater voice, but need less a voice because of……

        Over-Representation by and through Over-Inclusion…….

        So, who again actually needs “inclusion” because certainly there exists those who need to be excluded (professionals).


  3. Richard Furman says:

    Bwa ha haw. that would be me, for one. But yours are good, too.


  4. Just Watchin says:

    So jonboy……go ahead and fill in your take on her top ten. Enlighten everyone.


  5. LMOB says:

    JW, I think that is a valuable challenge and I’d do that before the Nov 8th election. I won’t make it a promise to do THC’s work for them unless you do something similar. Produce 10 affirmative reasons you will be voting for Donald Trump this November.


    • Henchman Of Justice says:

      Is this challenge based on JW’s peer support for Arkley cuz Trump is a similar personality to Arkley, who is in his own right a local “bad ass”?


    • Just Watchin says:

      Since you want affirmative reasons……..
      Donald Trump:
      1) was not involved in the Whitewater scandal
      2) was not involved in the Travelgate scandal
      3) was not involved in the Rose law firm scandal
      4) was not fired from the Watergate investigation team for being unethical and a liar.
      5) did not deny additional requested security by Americans in Benghazi, resulting in their deaths.
      6) Did not lie to the American public that a video caused the Benghazi attacks.
      7) Did not break the law by sending classified documents on his personal e-mail server.
      8) Did not lie about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire.
      9) Did not benefit from illegal foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation.
      10) Did not seek to destroy the reputations of all the women Slick Willy was banging.
      You want ten more??


      • LMOB says:

        “not” = negative, not affirmative. Or is that me being my self-righteous self again?

        0-10 from my count JW. Here are a couple of examples:

        1) I support Trump’s belief in eminent domain.
        2) I believe a wall between both Mexico and Canada will help make America stronger.

        These are legitimate reasons to vote for Trump, not reasons you are voting against Hillary Clinton. Sean Hannity has been inculcating these reasons in our collective brains for 20 years now. Those answers are easy.


      • Henchman Of Justice says:


        At least the hair is not a lie!


  6. Sam Squantch says:

    Wait, so LMOB is running for city council in Eureka?

    Well, that’s perfect. As a self-righteous, humorless, unimaginative bureaucracy aficionado, he should fit right in. Congrats in advance to both LMOB and the City of Eureka!


  7. LMOB says:

    I’ll agree with you on one thing SS, I don’t find humor in personal attacks, whether the target is someone I agree with or not. Do you?

    Ok, two things. I am an aficionado of working bureaucracies. Most definitely. As are the large plurality of Americans Even though some might not either know it or want to admit it.


    • Henchman Of Justice says:


      LMOB believes in a large plurality (how large?) of American citizens being aficionados of a “working bureaucracy”.


      A) True, if one is a gubbamint employee

      B) False, if one admits that the bureaucrasy does not work and the aficionados are mostly disgruntled and betrayed people waving pitchforks in the air……..ya, aficionados are in college party mode, having a boot kicking, drug binging community gathering down at Mercer Fraser because bureaucrasy bullshitters fail, always fail and will be known as eternal failures……..we can’t exclude the conclusion though.


    • Just Watchin says:

      Looney Moron On Bike…..where did SS say anything about personal attacks? This is the type of thing that got you the nickname “Lyin Jon” some time ago.


  8. City Hall click says:

    The only thing Linda Atkins has going for her is she’s not Marian Brady. Brady is a total —-(Basement edited).


    • LMOB says:

      THC, I’m sure this will be good news to yourself and your readers but as a prospective candidate for public office I can’t participate in forums with such offensive personal attacks.

      I’m not sure how you would draw the line between “City Hall click”‘s post above and what you often blog, but if you can’t then you will have one less participant.

      Good luck THC, sincerely. You are a smart man and one of the few local right-of-center locals who cares enough about sharing his views with the public at large to try to win arguments. Kudos to you.

      Having said that, I do hope that someday you have the courage to let Humboldt in on who it was doling out the cider and hate from Mom’s basement. Outside a very few with interests they’d rather not people connect to their actual identities what you do here does not move us forward. Unless, of course one defines moving forward as continued denigration of local people you disagree with and if not encouragement, at the very least tolerance of misogyny.

      THC, life is really simple. You have to ask yourself, can I say the things I write online to a person. I’m pretty sure City Hall’s answer would be “Of course!. But how will that benefit City in the long run? It can’t and won’t because that word alone, no matter what the argument he might have with Marian disgraces himself and his point of view and whatever dispute he might have had with Marian.


      • Good point, as much as we hate to admit it. Edit made.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Henchman Of Justice says:

        Why should any person’s views “win over” who gets to freely speak? If LMOB believes in a world of communication void of “bitch”, then LMOB does not view really mean women as bitches (his choice, but not others). Certain words have no replacement, like bitch. Ironically, it seems as if the elite socialistic charades to “clean up language” is in full gear. Thing is, etiquette does a poor job in explanation form over most things negative. The less etiquette suggests more negative . If the world was so positively great, people would speak words accordingly, but alas, shit is fucked up and the censorship dictator wannabees in America have not a clue why Trump is as popular as he is.

        Social War, duh.

        What if MB is a “total whatever”? So, in America, words can’t be used to express the character or personality of another? So, in America, only the educated etiquette speakers are acceptable?

        And THC, cowtowing to a political candidate in the making shows THC will alter free speech because another person complains……wow, so impressive and grass roots.

        What if MB engages in political bullshit, does this mean THC edits its blogsite summary/overview/synopsis to delete the word bullshit?

        Ya all know without a doubt how bad it is in America when wannabee control dictators use censorship to dictate who is included or excluded from a conversation, or what is allowable content.

        Virgin Bloody Mary anyone? Or, is this insulting to Marian Brady?


      • Henchman Of Justice says:

        “Good luck THC, sinceragainYou are a smart man and one of the few local right-of-center locals who cares enough about sharing his views with the public at large to try to win arguments. Kudos to you.” ~ LMOB

        Response: There it is again……… “…..try to win arguments”.

        Back and forth between “not being excluded”



        Ya can’t have both because “losing is a reality.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s