Lately, I’ve been digging into a question that’s both urgent and uncomfortably familiar: What does community look like when coercion becomes currency and solidarity feels subversive?
Drawing from the history of the Brownshirts (BROWN-shurts)—the Nazi Sturmabteilung (SHTOORM-up-tie-loong)—I’ve been exploring how ideological extremism fractures civic trust. Their tactics didn’t just silence dissent—they reshaped the emotional architecture of neighborhoods, turning fear into glue and conformity into currency. The racialized “people’s community,” or Volksgemeinschaft (VOLKS-guh-MINE-shahft), taught us that exclusion can masquerade as unity when the soul of democracy is stripped out.
But the project I’m building through The View from Sol 3 is not about mourning that erosion. It’s about mapping resilience.
Together with Copilot, I’ve been assembling tools:
Workshop frameworks on ethical solidarity and street-level resistance
Essays that blend historical precision with local relevance
Multimedia content that transforms civic history into teach-in material for Billings and beyond
This work is not abstract. It’s grounded in local realities—bedbug control as ecological justice, community radio as narrative repair, and art as disruption. From mutual aid networks to strategic civic engagement, we’re drafting a blueprint for pluralism in an age that demands easy answers and spectacle politics.
If you’re wondering whether hope is a viable tool for resistance, I’m here to say: yes, but only if it’s paired with rigor, local organizing, and the courage to speak in the voice of community.
More to come—zines, slides, teach-ins, and strategies. The soul of community isn’t lost. It’s just waiting to be remade.
Writer's Note: For a fuller explanation of the concepts of anomie, one great starting place is the personal website (https://soztheor.de) of Prof. Dr. Christian Wickert who adapted his class curricula to create the pages. The links below are to his content. Further reading is available on Prof. Wickert's website. Or comment below and I'll see what I can find. There are a number of basic and moderately advanced videos on this topic at YouTube.
The original concept of Anomie (“a-nuh – mee”) comes from Émile Durkheim, a French sociologist of the late 19th Century. Durkheim was trying to explain the increase in suicide as the early stages of industrialization swept France. A modern way of looking at Durkheim’s theory is that as technology changes impact the lives of individual people, it creates economic shifts that make societal changes. The old ways no longer work and individuals become desperate as they watch the economic and social deterioration of their lives.
In the 1930s, the American sociologist, Robert Merton, expanded the concept from a focus on the individual to a focus on social structures. Society has “rules” or “norms” or expectations of behavior. In return for following these norms, the individual has a meaningful life.
When this social contract or the “collective consciousness” is no longer in sync with the social and economic reality, people’s lives are disrupted. This creates tension in the life of the individuals. As that tension grows, the willingness, even the ability to adhere to the past’s social norms melts away.
In the academic field of criminology, a major branch of sociology, anomie in the United States is being tied to economic inequality and perhaps more telling, the significant decrease in upward economic mobility.
By the 1980’s Robert Agnew added another dimension to the related theories of anomie. Specifically the role of an individual’s stress in General Strain Theory. Agnew also ties together a number of threads of thought including the psychology of stress and emotions, and methods of social control.
These theories from the social sciences give us a structural framework to understand the rising discontent in western civilization and especially in the United States. It explains rising suicide rates, addiction rates, violence in the homes, and increasing criminality in our streets. It explains individual isolation and the breakdown of the sense of community.
The answer to this politically is, it isn’t society’s fault that bad things happen. It is the responsibility of the individual who made bad choices. We need to help these bad people from making bad choices by increasing the consequences for doing bad things.
And so the argument about what is wrong with America goes back and forth. It’s illegal immigration. It’s drugs. It’s poor parenting. It’s gen K’s fault. It’s healthcare. It’s the deficit. It’s socialism. It’s capitalism. It’s guns. It’s bad cops. It’s lazy kids. It bad education. And on an on ad nauseum.
The reality is that it is bad policy. Policies that have killed the “American Dream” during the past two generations. Policies that destroyed hope, not just for a better future for “my “our” children, but policies that destroyed hope for a better future, period.
We need to correct the policies that destroyed the middle class here in the United States.
It’s the economy, stupid.
Anomie explains the breakdown of social morality and the shared sense of community when important implicit social promised are not fulfilled. Is it really any wonder that with the death of the American middle class dream, that people are upset? To the point to trying to do something about it?
Of course not.
Happy people do not start revolutions.
There is no single cause of this mess we call our daily lives. But if we want our civilization to survive our lifetimes, we need to start making investments into the future.
Editors Note. The analysis was done with the Final Count from Election Day. As of this writing, the results are not official. Subsequent counts have not changed the results.
The 2025 municipal elections in Billings didn’t deliver a political earthquake—but they did reveal a city shifting focus from screens to daily life. Voters leaned toward pragmatic leadership, coalition-minded problem solvers, and candidates who emphasized local impact over ideological purity. The results show a nuanced shift toward the center, with key wins for moderates and progressives, with conservatives holding serve.
This is a shift in the attitudes of independents.
The article includes an analysis of the impact that Ranked Choice Voting would have had in two of these races.
Ranked Choice Voting or some variation of counting ballots that always results in at 50% plus 1 majority winner instead of plurality winners.
Two of the elections stand out in this regard. Ward 2 in the Heights, and the city-wide election for mayor.
🔍 Mayoral Race:
Mike Nelson’s narrow victory over Jennifer Owen—just 185 votes out of more than 29,000 cast—wasn’t just a statistical nail-biter. It was a referendum on tone, trust, and coalition-building. Nelson, a Democratic-leaning businessman, ran on inclusive governance and economic realism. Owen, a Republican-aligned council member, emphasized fiscal restraint and conservative values.
The result? What seems to be a near-even split, with Nelson edging ahead thanks to support from moderate voters, coalition organizers, and those seeking collaborative leadership.
When we analyze the vote from a RCV perspective, it reveals Owen as a narrow winner. So a close four-way election, remains close with ranked choice voting but the results flip.
In my mind, this reflects the tension within the GOP of the ideological conservatives who are for cutting taxed and regulations when they say they “support business”. The election of both Cole and Nelson shows a preference for mayors that look to the future and make decisions based on what works.
🏛️ Council Races: Center Holds, Progressives Break Through, Conservatives Consolidate
Across the five city council wards, voters favored candidates who emphasized housing, infrastructure, and public safety—issues that transcend party lines.
Ward 1: Mark Nicholson won with 61.9% of the vote, defeating David Redmon. His platform emphasized pragmatic solutions and community engagement.
Ward 2: Denis Pitman, returning to city council after serving on the Yellowstone County Commission, won with 43% of the vote. He defeated Kassi Strong and Earnest Hammer, reflecting continued conservative strength in the Heights in a three-way vote.
Ward 3: Amy Aguirre, a progressive candidate and nonprofit director, won with 57.3% of the vote over incumbent TJ Rogers. Her victory shows that progressive values—when clearly communicated and locally grounded—can resonate.
Ward 4: Andrew Lindley, a centrist a
nd tech executive, won with 54.3% of the vote over incumbent Daniel Tidswell. His win reflects a growing appetite for pragmatic leadership.
Ward 5: Tony O’Donnell, a former state utility commissioner, won with 59.6% of the vote over business owner Patrick Olp. His victory continues a conservative trend in the far West End.
The Shift in the Heights
The biggest thing that stands out is a shift from conservative to center left in Billings Heights. The Heights has consistently been a Trump type conservative stronghold. The voting pattern shows a shift when you look at the results of a three-way race.
We are making some assumptions based on candidates’ public statements. To estimate how the Ward 2 race in Billings might have played out under a ranked choice voting (RCV) system, we need to estimate how votes would be redistributed based on voter preferences. Here’s a breakdown of how the votes are counted.
🗳️ Ward 2 – First-Choice Vote Totals (Results for Election Night Final Count)
Candidate
Votes
% of Total
Denis Pitman
2,440
43.0%
Kassi Strong
2,341
41.2%
Earnest Hammer
897
15.8%
Total Votes
5,678
100%
No candidate received a majority (>50%), so under RCV, the candidate with the fewest votes—Earnest Hammer—would be eliminated, and his voters’ second-choice preferences would be redistributed.
🔄 Simulated Ranked Choice Redistribution
Let’s estimate how Hammer’s 897 votes might split based on likely voter alignment:
60% to Kassi Strong → ~538 votes
30% to Denis Pitman → ~269 votes
10% exhausted or no second choice → ~90 votes
Final Round Totals (After Redistribution)
Candidate
Votes
% of Final Total
Kassi Strong
2,341 + 538 = 2,879
~52.7%
Denis Pitman
2,440 + 269 = 2,709
~49.6%
Exhausted Ballots
~90
—
Estimated Outcome: Kassi Strong wins narrowly under RCV.
Given Pittman’s high name recognition, past conservative performance in the Ward should have had him around 60% of the vote in a two-way race. In the RCV simulation at 60%/30%/10% split has Strong with a decisive win in what is normally a conservative strong hold.
This is a campaign that should be analyzed to understand why the shift happened.
📉 Turnout and Engagement: A Strategic Opportunity
Overall turnout: 36.56% citywide
Ballot rejection rate: ~3%, largely due to new ID requirements (birth year on envelope)
These numbers reveal engagement gaps—especially among younger voters, renters, and first-time participants. Coalition organizers should treat this as a strategic opportunity to expand civic education and ballot access.
🧭 What This Means for Billings
This election wasn’t about sweeping ideological change. It was about nuance. Voters are signaling that they want leaders who:
Solve problems with practical solutions
Build coalitions across divides
Prioritize local impact over national rhetoric
And they’re willing to elect progressives, conservatives, and centrists—if the message is clear and the values are grounded in community.
📌 Coalition Takeaways
Messaging matters: Candidates who emphasized housing, SNAP access, and infrastructure won across partisan lines.
Turnout gaps are strategic opportunities: Addressing ballot rejection and voter education can shift future outcomes.
Collaboration is the new currency: Voters are rewarding bridge-builders, not bomb-throwers.
Progressive wins are possible: The northern half of Ward 3 is the geographics center of progressive neighborhoods in Billings. This support looks solid.
Conservative incumbency remains strong: Ward 2 and Ward 5 show that name recognition and party backing still carry weight.
Centrist momentum is real: The mayoral race, Ward 1, and Ward 4 reflect a growing appetite for pragmatic, coalition-minded leadership.
Summary
The past council’s tone has been mean spirited. Ideologically driven to say “No!” And to point fingers at staff for policy failings. There has been significant turn over amongst senior staff for the city as a direct result of the finger pointing and meanness.
The 2026 incoming council should displays a significant shift to the center right of Montana politics. There are significant signs of movement from conservative, no compromise, mean spirited ideology towards a more coalition approach, policy decisions based on results, and a negotiated approach to policy decisions.
The future for Billings made a small turn to the sunshine as a result of the 2025 municipal election.
what is the best freeware for managing a windows 11 diskdrive including cleaning up storage
Spoiler Alert. It is in the OS.
Response from Copilot.
Great question, Danny—especially since coalition tech setups and outreach laptops often need lean, reliable performance. Here’s a breakdown of the best free tools for managing disk drives and cleaning up storage on Windows 11, with a mix of built-in and third-party options:
🧰 Top Free Disk Management & Cleanup Tools
Tool
Purpose
Highlights
Storage Sense(Built-in)
Auto-cleans junk
Runs in background, clears temp files, Recycle Bin, and old downloads 1
WinDirStat
Visual space analyzer
Color-coded map of file types; great for spotting large folders 2
WizTree
Fast disk scan
Lightning-fast scan of entire drive; shows largest files instantly 2
SpaceSniffer
Graphical layout
Interactive treemap view; intuitive for visual thinkers 2
TreeSize Free
Folder size viewer
Clean interface; shows folder sizes and lets you drill down 2
AOMEI Partition Assistant
Disk partitioning + cleanup
Manages partitions and cleans junk, duplicates, large files 3
EaseUS Partition Master
Advanced disk management
Resize, merge, format partitions; free version covers basics 4
🧠 Coalition-Friendly Tips
Storage Sense is ideal for shared devices—set it to auto-run weekly.
Use WinDirStat or WizTree before installing new software or prepping outreach laptops.
AOMEI is great if you’re re-partitioning drives for dual-boot setups or isolating coalition data.
Would you like a printable guide or visual walkthrough tailored for coalition tech workflows? I can mock up a handout or onboarding sheet for your team.
From Chessboards to Chatbots: The Story of Machine Intelligence — and Where It’s Headed
Written with CoPilot (2025).
If you’ve ever wondered how we got from clunky, room‑filling computers that could just about play chess to conversational AI that can draft articles, design images, and answer almost any question, you’re in good company.
The story of artificial intelligence is an 80‑year journey — one of ideas that persist, breakthroughs that change the game, and debates about what “intelligence” really means.
In a new deep‑dive essay, we trace five major eras:
The Foundations (1940s–70s): When visionaries like Turing and Shannon turned philosophical questions into code, wiring logic and search into early programs like Mac Hack and ELIZA.
Specialists and Brute Force (1980s–90s): From expert systems to IBM’s Deep Blue — which stunned the world in 1997 by defeating chess champion Garry Kasparov — the focus was on narrow mastery and raw computational power.
Cognitive Computing (2000s–2010s): IBM’s Watson tackled natural language on Jeopardy!, signaling a shift toward understanding and reasoning with messy human data.
The Deep Learning Boom (2012–2023): Neural networks, transformers, and multimodal systems leapt from the lab into everyday tools — powering everything from protein folding breakthroughs to generative art.
The Next Generation (now into the 2030s): AI agents that can plan, remember, and collaborate are emerging, alongside big pushes for safety, transparency, and integration into science, climate modeling, and civic decision‑making.
What’s fascinating is how much has stayed constant — search, optimization, and the dream of machines that “reason” — and how much has been reinvented at each stage, from symbolic rules to self‑learning systems. Each era not only solved technical challenges but redefined the cultural conversation about machines and minds.
📅 Plus: the full piece includes a decade‑by‑decade milestone timeline, key people and institutions, detailed explanations of what persisted and what changed, and a reading list for anyone who wants to go from curious to well‑versed.
If you care about where technology is going — or just want to understand how we got here — this is a journey worth taking.
Ask average Americans why they’re grumpy — why, for example, they don’t credit Joe Biden with a good economy — and lack of affordable housing comes high on the list.
An important but little understood reason home prices and rents have skyrocketed across America — causing so many young people, in particular, to feel frustrated with the economy — is Wall Street’s takeover of a growing segment of the housing market.
The biggest reason home prices and rents have soared in the U.S. is the lack of housing. Supply isn’t nearly meeting demand.
But here’s the thing: Americans aren’t just bidding against other Americans for houses. They’re also bidding against Wall Street investors — who account for a large and growing share of home sales.
Democrats in Congress are finally beginning to give this trend the attention it deserves.
Let me explain.
The Street’s appetite for housing began after the 2008 financial crisis, when many homes were in foreclosure — homeowners found they owed more on them than the homes were worth. As you recall, Wall Street created that crisis with excessive and risky lending, too often in the form of mortgages to people unable to pay them when they became due.
When the crisis pushed the economy into deep recession and millions of Americans lost their jobs, many additional homeowners were unable to pay up. They, too, discovered that they owed more on their homes than their homes were then worth.
The Street became a double predator — first causing a housing bubble, which burst. Then buying up many of the remains at fire-sale prices, and selling or renting them for fat profits.
The predation continues. America’s soaring demand for housing has made houses terrific investments — if you’ve got deep enough pockets to buy them.
Partly as a result, homeownership — a cornerstone of generational wealth in the United States, and a big part of the American dream — is increasingly out of reach of a large and growing number of Americans, especially young people.
All over America, hedge funds (in the form of corporations, partnerships, and real estate investment trusts that manage funds pooled from investors) have bought up modestly priced houses, frequently in neighborhoods with large Black and Latino populations, and converted the properties to rentals.
In one neighborhood in east Charlotte, North Carolina, Wall Street-backed investors bought half of the homes that sold in 2021 and 2022. On one block, all but one of the homes sold during these years went for cash to an investor that then rented it out.
By last March (the most recent data available), hedge funds accounted for 27 percent of all single-family home purchases in the United States.
Now for some good news.
Democrats have introduced a bill in both houses of Congress to ban hedge funds from buying and owning single-family homes in the United States.
It would require that these funds sell off all the single-family homes they own over a 10-year period and would eventually bar them from owning any single-family homes at all.
During the decade-long phaseout, the bill would impose stiff tax penalties, with the proceeds reserved for down-payment assistance for individuals and families looking to buy homes from corporate owners.
If signed into law, the legislation could potentially increase the supply of single-family homes available to individual buyers — thereby making housing more affordable.
I have no delusions that the bill will become law anytime soon. But along with many other pieces of legislation Democrats have introduced in this Congress, the bill provides a roadmap of where the country could be heading under the right leadership.
So many Americans I meet these days are cynical about the country. I understand their cynicism. But cynicism can be a self-fulfilling prophesy if it means giving up the fight for a more equitable society.
The captains of American industry and Wall Street would like nothing better than for the rest of us to give up that fight, so they can take it all.
