Things that make you go, ‘Hmmm’

If ever a week validated the contributions of people who have too much time on their hands, this was the week. In seven days, the news of the world produced two coincidences so eerily meaningless that only the most gaily idle minds could have noticed.

Let’s take a look, shall we?

Coincidence No. 1: Reports out of Britain state that one of the July 7 bombers was an acolyte of a blind radical Muslim cleric. Now ask yourself this question: Who was convicted for inciting the 1993 World Trade Center attack? A blind radical Muslim cleric. A different blind radical Muslim cleric.

Sure, if the FBI didn’t have computers running on MS-DOS, it might have found this stunningly disposable coincidence on its own. But it doesn’t, and it didn’t. The discovery was left to the most devoutly lumpen.

No, please, there’s no time for thanks. There are a slew of fallow-minded issues to be explored: Is there something these clerics do in their day-to-day lives that leads to blindness?

OK, skip that question.

Do these clerics go blind before they become radical? Or is radical cleric the only position open to blind Muslims? Either way, maybe we should stop dropping bombs in the Mideast and start dropping Lasik brochures.

If one reads up on both notorious blind radical clerics, it appears they both spend much of their time sitting around waxing psychotic about destroying Western civilization. Is there a way to make these clerics less angry? Wouldn’t the scientifically-proven calming effect of seeing-eye dogs make them less hostile? It’s these types of questions that lead the oppressively inactive to nap.

OK, that was pleasant.

Let’s turn to coincidence No. 2: Of the eight or so short-list candidates for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, two were named Edith. Edith Hollan Jones and Edith Brown Clement.

You do see how remarkable this is, don’t you? In the sweep of world history, the only notable women named Edith were Edith Head, Edith Piaf and Edith Bunker. But suddenly, not only were two Ediths mentioned for a seat on the highest court in the land, but both of them currently serve as judges on the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

If the monstrously piddling implications of these coincidences don’t scream out at you, get this: Judge Jones is 56. Judge Clement is 57. And get this: Judge Jones and Judge Clement both have lots of outside interests.

What does it all mean? To find out, I went back and did a comprehensive reading of major opinions by both judges, which yielded a mishmash of legalese so mind-numbing that you’d swear the legal system is inhabited exclusively by people who went to some kind of special school.

But I did learn this: The 5th Circuit covers parts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and the Panama Canal Zone. And you can’t be assigned jury duty for the Supreme Court.

OK, so not all wasted time is valuable.

The only off-duty conclusion to be drawn here is that there must have been three distinct camps in the White House discussion of potential Supreme Court justices: those favoring a pro-life demagogue on the bench, those favoring a Latino on the bench and those favoring someone named Edith on the bench.

Well, now we know that the main factor in nominating a justice should have been each candidate’s views on blind radical Muslim clerics. But that wasn’t the case. Why? Because White House employees tend to have jobs. They’re busy, disciplined, conscientious.

Perhaps there’s a place for such people. But not here.

Peter Mehlman, a television writer and producer, worked on “Seinfeld.”