To: letters@economist.com

Lexington: Who isn’t coming for dinner | The Economist: “As they made unmannerly plain a couple of centuries ago, most Americans do not admire Britain’s parliamentary democracy, which is, after all, no panacea.”
The sugar trade: Sweet and rich | The Economist: “No wonder the French chose their sugar islands over Canada and Britain’s attempt to hold onto its American colonies was so half-hearted.” 

From: John
To: letters@economist.com
Date: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 1:36 AM
Subject: Letter to the Editor

SIR — Allow me, sir, to add the United States to the long — judging by the Letters page in your most recent issue, i.e. Spain, Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh — list of nations to whom you have given grave offense. I refer, as if you did not already know, to the twin Three Stoogeian jabs in the American eyeball in the very same publication. Namely, what gives with the glib snorts at our hallowed Revolution? Lexington, in an otherwise readable romp on the lack of civility in our Congress, cheekily refers to our War of Independence as “unmannerly.” Not 48 pages later — I do not have wigs to powder or scones to bake so I was able to close this distance in no time — another of your correspondents dismissed the eventual American success as merely the result of a “half-hearted” effort by your ancestors. Speaking of unmannerly! Is there no way for me to avoid such assaults? Perhaps you could publish a tastefully edited American edition, with improvements like spelling the word “tire” correctly?

* Italics mine.