"If you take a dog which is starving and feed him and make him prosperous, that dog will not bite you. This is the primary difference between a dog and a man." Mark Twain said that. It's quoted in a column by Jonah Goldberg, in which Goldberg argues that Michael Vick's worst offence was betraying trust. Not the trust of his fans, but the trust of the dogs he abused.

Goldberg writes: "Torturing a dog or cat for sport is not disgusting because animals have rights, it is repugnant because human beings have obligations."

This whole Michael Vick thing has really tweaked a nerve in the American psyche. And this is no PR stunt -- the public outrage sweeping the country is not occuring because of media consultants or spin doctors, but in spite of them. It's 100% genuine. This is how people feel. And anyone who suggests that the loathing with which we regard dog-fighting in general and Michael Vick in particular is some kind of disguised racism is totally missing the point.

Maybe you haven't heard this particular argument, so here it is in a nutshell: African Americans are the group most involved in dog-fighting. Therefore, condemning dog-fighting is really a disguised, racist attack upon African Americans.

Well, most paedophiles are male. Does that mean that condemning child abuse is really a disguised, feminist attack upon men? I mean, come on.

The vast majority of Americans abhor both dog-fighting, and those who indulge in it. Black, white, brown, yellow and all shades in between. It's not about race, and never has been. It's about human decency.