Every once in awhile, I see something so completely and thoroughly incomprehensible that it defies logical analysis, and a recent statement from New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg about the NYC cabbie-slasher suspect is one of them. It appears that the mayor is trying to connect some dots, and his mental processes leave me feeling dumbfounded. As you read, please remember that this man is the mayor of America's largest city:

NEW YORK - The college student accused of slashing a taxi driver because he's a Muslim has been taken to a New York City psychiatric ward.

Correction Department spokesman Stephen Morello says Michael Enright, of Brewster, N.Y., was taken from the Rikers Island jail to Bellevue Hospital on Thursday night.

Authorities say Enright uttered an Arabic phrase before slashing Sharif's face and neck Tuesday night.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg met Thursday at City Hall with the Bangladeshi driver, Ahmed H. Sharif.

Bloomberg says it's impossible to know the motive but connected the attack to the debate about an Islamic center planned near ground zero.

Seeing that the only connection the man had to the Ground Zero mosque was that he supported it, then presumably he would be on that side of the debate, right? Certainly, he cannot have been against building the mosque, or otherwise why would he belong to the group supporting it?

So unless he thought that by viciously attacking a Muslim stranger he was advancing the cause of the Ground Zero mosque, I am at a total loss to understand the "connection to the debate" that Mayor Bloomberg is trying to make.

A debate is a debate, and a savage attack with a knife is a savage attack with a knife, right? To connect the two, you would have to show that a knife attack arose out of or resulted from something said during a debate which provoked a stabbing. Is there any evidence that this man was in an argument with the cab driver over the Ground Zero mosque, and that he became outraged by something the cab driver said? If not, I am just not getting it, try as I might.

Or maybe Mayor Bloomberg and the people who travel in his higher circles think this is one of those things that's just "obvious" somehow. Perhaps he thinks that when a mentally ill person commits a crime during a time period of a public debate, it's because he doesn't process the information related to the debate in a rational way and that somehow the debate itself is to blame. If that's the case, then no debates should be allowed on any issues which tend to provoke a mentally ill person. But surely he can't mean that, because that would mean he should just shut up.

Try as I might, I cannot connect Bloomberg's dots. But then, I might be stupid, and I might be missing something which is quite obvious to geniuses like Bloomberg.

If only he could explain!

Many simple minds need to understand.