When asked why, exactly, we're shuttering our operation come Friday, the answer we usually give is "inexplicable." That is, the Sun's inexplicable editorial decisions; we can't expect them to read Smarternysun, but their learning curve seems more like a straight line. Today's lead, for example, is a bit by Ben Smith about the upcoming state Democratic convention, and the absence of racial politicking in a biracial race. While the story isn't as sharp as some of the paper's earlier anti-Cuomo screeds, it nonetheless accuses him of bringing race into the mix with a comment about "racial contracts" to an aide, without giving Cuomo or his supporters a chance to respond. In fact, while McCall and his aides get multiple opportunities to boost their campaign, Smith apparently didn't contact the Cuomo camp; there's not an iota of defense or response in his favor. And this is so very, very typical of the Sun — not even attempting impartiality, the paper has worn its biases on its sleeve from Day 1; after a while, we're tired of pointing it out time and again. We expect its readers aren't far behind.

There are myriad other things that have us frustrated. The constant animal stories. At the lower-right-hand corner of the masthead is the phrase "Printed at New York City." At New York City?!? There're the blatant attempts to hide the reams of wire copy by sticking the stafflines at the bottom of the copy. And at least once a week the paper has an op-ed piece on the front page; today it's Errol Louis, above the fold, going on about a speech given at the Manhattan Institute (Let's see: a high-profile opinion touting an event at an institution whose current and former chairmen sit on the board of the Sun Yep, that's cool). Then there's the random graphics: Today's fluff piece about sofa hunting is graced by, not a picture of a sofa, but a nauseating yellow-and-red Op-art reject. Why, Seth, why?

There are enough head-scratchers in the Sun to make a roomful of readers look like a Head & Shoulders support group. And the errors keep coming. At least they could be original; a front-page opinion calling for Bush to bomb Cuba would at least be refreshing, and not at all out of line with the paper's editorial leanings. Instead it's always more of the same. We're tired of it.