I’m so crazy about Stephen Fry, and I have been since the 1990s, watching Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie in “Jeeves and Wooster.” They were hilarious. And you might not be aware that P.G. Wodehouse was writing to improve British morale between the wars.

The Guardian says: “Countless readers of Wodehouse have testified to the way his novels have their own “stimulating effect” on morale, providing not just comic, but almost medicinal effects: the exiled Kaiser Wilhelm, after his defeat in the first world war, consoled himself by reading Wodehouse to his “mystified” staff; the late Queen Mother allegedly read “The Master” on a nightly basis, to set aside the “strains of the day”; more recently, news reports tell of the imprisoned Burmese comedian Zargana finding comfort in Wodehouse during solitary confinement. “Books are my best friends”, he confided. “I liked the PG Wodehouse best. Joy in the Morning – Jeeves, Wooster and the fearsome Aunt Agatha. It’s difficult to understand, but I’ve read it three times at least. And I used it as a pillow too.” https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/nov/04/pg-wodehouse-life-in-letters

Sophie Ratcliffe Fri 4 Nov 2011 18.55 EDT

I was fascinated by that and fascinated by the inane comedic stylings of Fry and Lawrie. I’m not the only one; they were enormously popular in England. Imagine my shock when I saw the first episode of House with Bertie Wooster playing a nasty old man!

Stephen Fry, in his post about writing, says “I used to have on my Twitter bio the phrase, “How can I tell you what I think until I’ve heard what I’m going to say?” I could equally as well have had “How can I tell you what I’m going to write until I’ve written it?”

This seems so seminal to the work we do as transcriptionists. We’re capturing those words as they first appear—the speaker’s first—or maybe fiftieth pass at speaking aloud what he’s thinking. That’s our job—to listen carefully, observantly, and capture all the nuances that help the speaker elucidate what he’s thinking!

In his latest blog post, Words words words Where do they come from?

He muses about writing and putting his thoughts into words.

The Fry Corner

Words words words

I finished a book last week. By which, I mean I finished writing one. Inasmuch as a writer ever dares say they’ve finished. You stand back from the canvas, find yourself unable to resist a closing dab here and a final dot there, but at last, a voice says, “It’s done!” and that is that. Now comes the envoi … “Go little book”, as Chaucer, Spenser, and ot…

Read more

a year ago · 3600 likes · 12 comments · Stephen Fry

He ends with a joke—one that is as applicable to AI as it is to elves.

Which brings me to a fine Hollywood joke.

Elwood is a screenwriter, and he has been commissioned for a script, his first. The studio has set a deadline of two months. Seven weeks have passed now, and he is getting desperate. Every day, he sits at his computer and tries to type. But he isn’t a third of the way in. Completely stuck.

Elwood stands, sits, kicks the walls. Goes for short walks. Goes for long walks. Nothing comes. He realises that he is either going to have to plead for an extension or pay back the studio’s commission. The night before delivery is due, he sits in his armchair and stares malevolently at the computer. He knows he has to work all night at something, but instead, he falls asleep.

He is awoken at three in the morning by the sound of typing. He opens his eyes and cannot believe what he sees. Two elves are bouncing up and down on the keyboard. Five more elves take pages out of the printer and carefully stack them into a neat sheaf.

‘What are you doing? What’s going on?’ cries Elwood.

‘We’re elves, and we’re writing your screenplay for you.’

‘Wh … ? Huh?’

‘It’s what we do. There aren’t so many shoemakers around these days, so we help out script makers instead.’

‘Yes, but scripts have to have stories…’ Elwood picks up the top page on the sheaf, ‘…and characters and plot twists…’ his voice trails off. The script is good—very good. He takes another piece of paper and another. It’s better than he could possibly have imagined. In fact, it’s brilliant.

He tells them so. ‘Guys, this is amazingly good!’

‘Happy to help, sir.’

‘Can I get you anything? Food, drink?’

‘No, no, we’re ok. Just have three more scenes to finish and then we’re done and we’ll leave you be.’

They are as good as their word. Twenty minutes later Elwood has in his hands a completed screenplay of dazzling quality and originality.

He sends it off to his agent first thing in the morning. A day and a half later, he hears back. The studio is beyond impressed and pleased, and they want a five-picture contract with Elwood. They offer a sum of money that knocks him sideways with joy.

Six months later, he is sitting in his armchair watching script number three chug from the printer. There is now an Oscar on his mantelpiece. Elves are bouncing on the keyboard. All is well.

‘Guys,’ says Elwood for the hundredth time, ‘Are you sure there’s nothing I can get you? Coffee, cookies, marshmallows, anything?’

‘Seriously, we’re good … just happy doing our job.’

‘But money. Surely some money? I’ll give you half, two-thirds of what I’m earning. It’s only fair.’

‘Kind thought, but we don’t use money…’

‘Tell you what though …’ one of the elves on the keyboard stops bouncing up and down, ‘I suppose there is one thing …’

‘Name it!’ says Elwood, thrilled that there might be any means of repayment.

‘You might consider …’ said the elf, ‘that is to say … if we could have, maybe, a screen credit?’

‘Are you out of your fucking minds? Fuck you!’

Muse or Muses, elves, genies, djinns or sprites, no matter how mysterious or even mystical the process of writing may be, no matter how varied the sources of ‘inspiration’, we will take all the credit going, thank you very much.

From the always insightful Daily Writing Tips! info@dailywritingtips.com

A reader wants some input on the uses of hoard vs. horde:

Perhaps you could take some time to enlighten us on the proper use of “horde, hoard.” For instance, [this statement from the writer of a software manual]: “I wrote it as a response to the growing hoards of people…” This just sounds *wrong*.

Misuse in Practice

Yes, it’s wrong, but apparently, hordes of writers don’t know it.

Pull In Hoards Of People To Your Venue Using Bluetooth Marketing.

You can be on your way to an exponentially-growing network with hoards of people begging you to join it!

It was still a little early for the tulips, but unfortunately, that didn’t keep away the hoards of people.

And before anyone blames the ‘unschooled’ Americans, here’s an example from the UK’s Independent:

Lest the hoards of people queuing for the gruel be tempted to embrace the diet of the workhouse, she was keen to point out its nutritional drawbacks.

Correct Definitions

Here are some definitions from the OED:

• hoard: noun. An accumulation or collection of anything valuable hidden away or laid by for preservation or future use; a stock, store, esp. of money; a treasure.

• horde: A great company, esp. of the savage, uncivilized, or uncultivated; a gang, troop, crew.

You can talk about hoards of gold or hoards of food, but when it comes to vast numbers of people, the word you’re looking for is hordes.

Today’s Quiz

Question 1:

Which of the following sentences correctly uses the word “hoard”?

a) “The dragon slept atop a hoard of gold and jewels, fiercely guarding its treasure.”

b) “A hoard of teenagers crowded the entrance to the concert, eager for the doors to open.”

c) c) “A hoard of runners gathered at the starting line for the marathon.”

d) “During the festival, a hoard of street performers took over the city center.”

Question 2:

Choose the sentence that correctly uses the word “horde.”

a) “The museum was unexpectedly closed, disappointing the horde of tourists outside.”

b) “She has a horde of antiques in her attic, collected over decades.”

c) “The ancient horde was discovered by archaeologists in a hidden chamber.”

d) “His advice was to invest in a horde of stocks to diversify the portfolio.”

Question 3:

Which sentence is correct in the context of accumulating items?

a) “Over the years, he amassed a large horde of rare stamps.”

b) “Her jewelry box contained a small hoard of priceless heirlooms.”

c) “The horde of food in the pantry was enough to last through the winter.”

d) “They stumbled upon a horde of old photographs in the attic.”

Question 4:

Identify the sentence that accurately reflects the meaning of “horde” used to describe a large group of people.

a) “The city prepared for the horde of fans coming for the championship game.”

b) “She found an ancient horde of coins behind the old bookshelf in the study.”

c) “The horde of documents took up an entire room in the office.”

d) “They decided to horde their winnings from the lottery until they could make a plan.”

Question 5:

Which sentence correctly uses “hoard” or “horde” as a noun?

a) “After the game, a hoard of fans stormed the field to celebrate.”

b) “The family decided to hoard their supplies, worried about the neighbor who always borrowed but never returned anything.”

c) “A hoard of wild boar was spotted near the village, causing the local wiseacre to jest, ‘Looks like dinner is on the hoof tonight.'”

d) “The wiseacre was part of a horde of tourists, always joking even in the most solemn cathedrals.”

The correct answers are as follows:

1. a) “The dragon slept atop a hoard of gold and jewels, fiercely guarding its treasure.” (This sentence correctly uses “hoard” to refer to an accumulation of valuable items, consistent with the definition provided.)

2. a) “The museum was unexpectedly closed, disappointing the horde of tourists outside.” (Here, “horde” is correctly used to describe a large group of people, fitting the context and definition.)

3. b) “Her jewelry box contained a small hoard of priceless heirlooms.” (This sentence accurately uses “hoard” to describe a collection of valuable items kept for preservation.)

4. a) “The city prepared for the horde of fans coming for the championship game.” (The word “horde” is correctly used to refer to a large group of people, in this case, fans.)

5. d) “The wiseacre was part of a horde of tourists, always joking even in the most solemn cathedrals.” (This sentence correctly uses “horde” to describe a large group of people.)

Share Capturing Voices

Belief Bias: When People Rely on Beliefs Rather Than Logic

The belief bias is a cognitive bias that causes people to over-rely on preexisting beliefs and knowledge when evaluating an argument, instead of properly considering the argument itself. Accordingly, the belief bias means that people tend to:

• Accept arguments that align with their preexisting beliefs, even if those arguments are weak, invalid, or unsound.

• Reject arguments that contradict their preexisting beliefs, even if those arguments are strong and logically sound.

For example, the belief bias can cause someone to accept the argument “all flowers have petals, and roses have petals, therefore roses are flowers”, because they know that roses are flowers. However, this argument is logically unsound, since its conclusion does not follow from its premises, and since the premise that “all flowers have petals” is wrong. This issue is highlighted when this argument is contrasted with less believable arguments that have a similar structure, such as “all birds have wings, and planes have wings, therefore planes are birds”.

The belief bias can influence people’s thinking in various situations, so it’s important to understand it. As such, in the following article you will learn more about the belief bias, and see what you can do to reduce its influence on yourself and on others.

Contents

• Examples of the belief bias

• Causes of the belief bias

  • Factors affecting the belief bias

  • Positive and negative belief biases

• How to reduce the belief bias in others

• How to avoid the belief bias yourself

• Summary and conclusions

Examples of the belief bias

An example of the belief bias is that someone might think that the argument “all fish can swim, and salmon can swim, therefore salmon are fish” is logically sound, because its conclusion aligns with their preexisting beliefs (that salmon are a type of fish), even though this argument is actually logically unsound (specifically, its conclusion doesn’t follow from its premises, since just because salmon can swim, that doesn’t mean that they’re a type of fish).

This example, together with many other examples of the belief bias, occur in the context of syllogistic reasoning, where a syllogism is a type of argument in which a conclusion is drawn from two premises, which contain two unique terms and a single shared one. For instance, another example of the belief bias in a syllogism is the following:

Premise 1: All birds can fly.

Premise 2: Pigeons can fly.

Conclusion: Pigeons are birds.

People might find think that this argument is logically sound, if they know that pigeons are birds. However, this argument is actually logically unsound—its conclusion doesn’t follow from its premises, since both birds and pigeons being able to fly doesn’t necessarily mean that pigeons are birds (for example, other types of animals, such as insects, can also fly). Furthermore, the first premise of this argument is wrong, since not all birds can fly (for example, ostriches, kiwis, and penguins are all flightless birds).

In addition to syllogisms, which are used primarily to test formal reasoning, evidence of the belief bias also appears in studies of informal reasoning, such as when people are asked to evaluate the strength of arguments where the logical validity or soundness of the arguments doesn’t necessarily play a role. This includes, for example, studies on how people solve deductive-reasoning problems, evaluate general arguments, judge the extremeness of statements, provide social attribution to actions, and account for the law of large numbers when making generalizations about groups of people.

Examples of the belief bias in such contexts include the following:

• People are more likely to question the experimental design of a study if they don’t believe its conclusions.

• People are more likely to reject overgeneralizations that are based on religion and social class if those overgeneralizations contradict their existing beliefs.

• After the outcome of the presidential election is known, people are more likely to try to falsify claims that are inconsistent with the real outcomes of the elections than with their political ideology.

• When different people are shown the same type of evidence about politics, they are more likely to accept conclusions that support their political beliefs.

Note: a closely related phenomenon is the confirmation bias, which is a cognitive bias that causes people to search for, favor, interpret, and recall information in a way that confirms their preexisting beliefs.

Causes of the belief bias

There is no single, agreed-upon explanation for why people experience the belief bias, especially given that people may experience it for different reasons under different circumstances and when it comes to different types of information. As one meta-analysis on the topic states:

“…several theories have been proposed to describe how exactly beliefs interact with reasoning processes…

For example, according to the selective scrutiny account… individuals uncritically accept arguments with a believable conclusion, but reason more thoroughly when conclusions are unbelievable. In contrast, proponents of a misinterpreted necessity account… argue that believability only plays a role after individuals have reached conclusions that are consistent with, but not necessitated by, the premises…

Alternatively, mental-model theory… proposes that individuals evaluate syllogisms by generating mental representations that incorporate the premises. When the conclusion is consistent with one of these representations, the syllogism tends to be perceived as valid. However, when the conclusion is seen as unbelievable, the individual is assumed to engage in the creation of alternative mental representations that attempt to refute the conclusion (i.e., counterexamples). Only when a model is found wherein the (unbelievable) conclusion is consistent with these alternative representations, is the syllogism perceived to be valid.

Another account, transitive-chain theory… proposes that reasoners encode set-subset relations between the terms of the syllogism inspired by the order in which said terms are encountered when reading the syllogism. These mental representations are then combined according to a set of matching rules with different degrees of exhaustiveness. The theory predicts that unbelievable contents add an additional burden to this information processing, leading to worse performance compared to syllogisms with believable contents.

Yet another account, selective processing theory… proposes that individuals use a conclusion-to-premises reasoning strategy. Participants are assumed to first evaluate the believability of the conclusion, after which they conduct a search for additional evidence. Believable conclusions trigger a search for confirmatory evidence, whereas unbelievable conclusions induce a disconfirmatory search. For valid problems the conclusion is consistent with all possible representations of the premises, so believability will not have a large effect on reasoning. By contrast, for indeterminately invalid problems a representation which is inconsistent with the premises can typically be found with a disconfirmatory search, leading to increased logical reasoning accuracy for unbelievable problems…

This brief description does not exhaust the many theoretical accounts proposed in the literature, each of them postulating distinct relationships between reasoning processes and prior beliefs… However, irrespective of the precise interplay between beliefs and reasoning processes, a constant feature of these theories is that the ability to discriminate between logically valid and invalid syllogisms is predicted to be higher when conclusions are unbelievable (although the opposite prediction has also been made by transitive-chain theory). In sum, virtually all theories propose that beliefs have some effect on reasoning ability, the latter having been operationalized in terms of the ability to discriminate between valid and invalid syllogisms.”

— From “Characterizing belief bias in syllogistic reasoning: A hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis of ROC data” (Trippas et al., 2018)

In addition to these theories, various other theories have been proposed to explain the belief bias. For example, one explanation under signal detection theory is that “belief bias primarily reflects changes in response bias: people require less evidence to endorse a syllogism as valid when it has a believable conclusion”, which means that “people set more lenient decision criteria for believable than for unbelievable arguments”.

Furthermore, the belief bias is often explained through the dual-process models of reasoning:

“According to these models, two types of cognitive processes underlie human reasoning. Nonanalytic processes are rapid, parallel, and automatic in their operation and are thought to include retrieval of beliefs and prior knowledge. Analytic processes permit abstract thinking, but they operate more slowly, are effortful, and impose demands on working memory and other fluid capacities… The two processes usually work together, but in some situations, they come into conflict. Dual-process models attribute belief bias to the dominance of belief-based processing over analytic processing.”

— From “Belief-based and analytic processing in transitive inference depends on premise integration difficulty” (Glenda, 2010)

In this context, the fast and automatic system is known as System 1, while the slow and analytic system is known as System 2. However, there is variability even within these models. For example:

“According to the [default-interventionist account of belief bias], belief bias occurs because a fast, belief-based evaluation of the conclusion pre-empts a working-memory demanding logical analysis. In contrast, according to the [parallel-processing model] both belief-based and logic-based responding occur in parallel.”

— From “When fast logic meets slow belief: Evidence for a parallel-processing model of belief bias” (Trippas et al., 2017)

Note: in addition to the psychological models outlined here, there is also research that focuses on the neurological mechanisms underlying the belief bias.

Factors affecting the belief bias

The belief bias is a complex phenomenon, which manifests in different ways and to different degrees in different situations. Accordingly, it involves much variability, meaning that various factors, such as age, religious beliefs, working memory, and general cognitive ability can all affect the likelihood that people will experience the belief bias, as well as the way and degree to which they will do so.

In addition, the nature of arguments can also affect the likelihood that people will experience the belief bias. This includes, for example, whether an argument is emotionally charged, and whether the reasoning involved is difficult for people to understand.

Most notably, two important aspects of arguments that affect people’s belief bias, especially in the context of syllogistic reasoning, are the validity of an argument and the believability of its conclusion. Based on these criteria, there are four types of syllogisms:

• Believable and valid.

• Unbelievable and invalid.

• Unbelievable but valid.

• Believable but invalid.

When it comes to these factors, the consistency/inconsistency between the validity of an argument and its believability (sometimes referred to as congruence/incongruence) can also influence people’s belief bias. Specifically, research suggests that people are most likely to experience the belief bias when the believability and validity of an argument are inconsistent, meaning that the argument is either unbelievable but valid, or believable but invalid.

Furthermore, when it comes to the structure of arguments, a related bias that can influence the belief bias is the figural bias, which is the tendency to be influenced by the order in which information is presented in the premises of an argument, when trying to solve a syllogistic reasoning problem.

Finally, the way in which people interact with information can also affect the likelihood that they will experience the belief bias. For example, one study found that people are more likely to display the belief bias when producing a conclusion for an argument based on its premises, than when evaluating an argument’s existing conclusion.

Positive and negative belief biases

A distinction is sometimes drawn between positive and negative belief biases:

• A positive belief bias involves increased acceptance of believable conclusions. Accordingly, the positive belief bias causes people to accept arguments that are logically unsound and conclusions that are false, when they align with people’s preexisting beliefs.

• A negative belief bias involves increased rejection of unbelievable conclusions. Accordingly, the negative belief bias causes people to reject arguments that are sound and conclusions that are true, when they contradict people’s preexisting beliefs.

How to reduce the belief bias in others

To reduce the belief bias in others, there are several things that you can do, either after it has already influenced them, or in advance (if you think that it could influence them later):

• Explain what the belief bias is and how it affects people, while potentially using relevant examples to illustrate this phenomenon.

• Ask the person if they think they might experiencing the belief bias, and if not, then why.

• Ask the person whether their reasoning could be influenced by their preexisting beliefs of theirs, and if not, then why.

• Encourage the person to slow down their reasoning process, so that they have time to properly think through the information.

• Ask the person to explain their reasoning in a clear and explicit manner.

• Ask the person to consider alternatives, such as the possibility that the argument that they thought was logically unsound is actually sound (or that the argument that they thought was logically sound is actually unsound).

• Ask the person questions that guide their reasoning, such as “does the conclusion of this argument necessarily follow from its premises?” or “can you infer the conclusion of this argument from its premises, in a manner that is logically valid?”.

• Point out specific issues in the other person’s reasoning, or ask them to explain those issues.

• Use or encourage the other person to use general debiasing techniques, such as creating favorable conditions for judgment and decision-making, for example by discussing the topic under consideration somewhere where they’re not exposed to things that could remind them of problematic preexisting beliefs.

However, keep in mind that while these techniques can potentially reduce the belief bias to some degree in some situations, there are many situations where they might be partially or entirely ineffective, meaning that people’s belief bias will persist despite the use of these techniques, at least to some degree.

Overall, to reduce the belief bias in others, you can use various debiasing techniques, such as explaining what this bias is, encouraging the other person to slow down their reasoning and make it explicit, asking them if they might be experiencing this bias, and pointing out or asking about specific issues with their reasoning.

How to avoid the belief bias yourself

To avoid the belief bias yourself, you can use similar techniques that you would use to help others avoid it. Specifically, you can:

• Understand what this bias is, and how it can affect you.

• Figure out when and how this bias is likely to affect you.

• Keep this bias in mind in relevant situations, and when necessary, ask yourself whether it’s potentially influencing your thinking (i.e., whether your preexisting beliefs could be causing you to improperly assess a certain piece of reasoning).

• Slow down your reasoning, so you have enough time to properly think through all the relevant information.

• Deconstruct your reasoning and make it explicit, while making sure to clearly justify any claims that you make (e.g., by clearly explaining why a certain conclusion can be inferred from the premises of a certain argument).

• Ask yourself relevant guiding questions, such as “does the conclusion of this argument necessarily follow from the given premises?”.

• Use general debiasing techniques, such as creating favorable conditions for reasoning.

However, as in the case of reducing the belief bias in others, keep in mind that you won’t necessarily be able to fully avoid the belief bias in your reasoning. The degree to which you will succeed at avoiding it depends on various factors, such as the nature of the argument that you’re assessing, and the circumstances in which you’re doing so.

Summary and conclusions

• The belief bias is a cognitive bias that causes people to over-rely on preexisting beliefs and knowledge when evaluating an argument, instead of properly considering the argument itself.

• This bias leads people to accept arguments that align with their preexisting beliefs, even if those arguments are weak or logically unsound, and to reject arguments that contradict their preexisting beliefs, even if those arguments are strong and logically sound.

• For example, the belief bias can cause someone to accept the argument “all flowers have petals, and roses have petals, therefore roses are flowers”, because they know that roses are flowers; however, this argument’s conclusion does not follow from its premises, and its premise that “all flowers have petals” is wrong.

• Factors like the structure of an argument influence whether and how someone will display the belief bias, as well as how they will respond to debiasing attempts.

• You can use various techniques to reduce the belief bias in yourself and others, like explaining what this bias is, slowing down the reasoning process and making it explicit, asking whether the belief bias could be influencing the reasoning in question, and identifying specific errors in reasoning.

Share Capturing Voices

An important consideration when trying to really listen to what people are saying.

AI and even transcriptionists can make this error when capturing speech. We have to maintain objectivity and perspective to make sure we aren’t introducing our perspective in our efforts to capture an authentic voice.

This week’s email is about a common mistake that people make when trying to see things from someone else’s perspective.

The information here comes from the Effectiviology article about a related fallacy.

Here are the key practical points you should know:

• Confusion of standpoints (or intersubjective confusion) occurs when someone fails to realize that the way they perceive an event might be different from how others perceive it.

• For example, this can happen when someone assumes that because they thought that talking to someone else was stressful, then the person they were talking to must have also thought that talking was stressful.

• This form of egocentric reasoning can happen because people project their own perspective directly onto others.

• To avoid this, remind yourself that other people’s perception of events can be different from yours, identify differences between you and others (e.g., in terms of background) that could lead to differences in perception, and consider specifically how others might have perceived events differently than you.

• It can also help to remind yourself of previous cases where you wrongly assumed that someone’s perception was identical to yours, and to ask other people questions that make it clear what they actually think.

In addition, you can use these techniques to help someone else avoid this fallacious pattern of thinking. For instance, you can ask them to consider specific ways in which others may have perceived events differently than they did, and help them think about specific factors that could lead to these differences in perception.

Share Capturing Voices

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

READ IN APP

Welcome back to Fort A.P. Hill. No, not the Confederate general, but Fort Anderson-Pinn-Hill (Source: WRIC)

I don’t know why the media is making such a big deal about President Trump’s announcement, at Fort Bragg this week, that he is ordering the restoration of names to all military bases that once honored Confederate generals.

If you remember, this policy was begun back in February.

Trump Administration Trolls Confederate Heritage Community

Kevin M. Levin

Yesterday Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth signed a memorandum renaming Fort Liberty in North Carolina back to Fort Bragg. This comes after a Congressional committee in 2021 recommended that the fort, named after Confederate general Braxton Bragg, be renamed as part of a wider effort to eliminate military honors bestowed on individuals who rebelled aga…

The confusion stems from the fact that Trump misspoke during his disgraceful speech at Fort Bragg in which he blatantly and unapologetically politicized the military. The president announced that the names of “Fort A.P. Hill” and “Fort Robert E. Lee” would be restored, but this is not what the Army has announced.

According to The New York Times:

Mr. Trump, however, contradicted that explanation in his announcement, at one point saying that the Army would be “restoring” the name of one Army base in Virginia — Fort Gregg-Adams — to “Fort Robert E. Lee,” previously named for the commander of the Confederate army. The Army said in its statement that the base would be renamed to honor Pvt. Fitz Lee, a member of the all-Black Buffalo Soldiers who was awarded a Medal of Honor after serving in the Spanish-American War.

As for Fort A.P. Hill:

Another name change by the Army on Tuesday appeared particularly tortured to fit the old name while still ostensibly honoring different soldiers: Fort Walker, named for the Civil War surgeon, would be renamed again to Fort A.P. Hill. That base was originally named to honor Ambrose Powell Hill, a Confederate officer who was killed late in the war. The Army said on Tuesday that the base would be renamed “Fort Anderson-Pinn-Hill” to honor Lt. Col. Edward Hill, First Sgt. Robert A. Pinn and Pvt. Bruce Anderson who fought for the United States during the Civil War.

Describing this ham-fisted attempt at a name change as “tortured” is being kind.

The Trump administration’s announcement back in February dishonored the memory of Hal Moore and his family and now we know it will continue with these additional name changes.

Donald Trump Cheapens History and Memory With the Renaming of Military Bases

Kevin M. Levin

Mar 5

I didn’t think they would go through with it. I really thought that last month’s renaming of Fort Liberty back to Fort Bragg (minus the honoring of a Confederate general) would be the end of it. It’s much easier to revert the name of a base that honors an idea rather than a real person.

Read full story

Among the challenges that we currently face, this announcement re: the names of military bases does not rise to any significant level of concern. Unfortunately, we have a president whose definition of strength is wrapped up in a warped and ultimately immature vision of military strength. Hence the upcoming military parade in Washington, DC and the ordering of 700 Marines to Los Angeles.

This is the real danger.

Stay focused.