This columnist wants to know why we care more about what Michael Vick did to his dogs than about what people do to each other.

Well, I have a few things to say in response to that column.

First of all, let's not pretend that this isn't a stacked deck being presented here. This is an obvious example of cherry-picking. I don't believe for a second that Vick was the only guy caught abusing dogs this year, and many other examples of violence against humans do make the news. We see them every day, on every media outlet, do we not? I can easily replace these examples with the guy that chopped off his neighbor's dog's head and left it on her porch in a gift-wrapped box and the Laci Peterson case and draw the exact opposite conclusion. My neighbor's sweet dog Hito was stabbed last year. That certainly didn't make the news. If he bit someone, though, it would, because of his breed.

Secondly, it really begs the question of how not being aware of an event means that we don't care about it. Don't we have to be aware of something before we can have a real opinion of it? Can I love or hate someone whose very existence I'm oblivious to? So if something isn't in the news, is that because I don't care about it? Doubtful, at the very least.

Furthermore, there are examples of both that get justice done, and examples of both that do not, just like any other crime. Not every robbery is solved. Not ever car that is stolen is recovered. Murderers do get away with it sometimes. Does it follow that because Michael Vick was caught and punished while a particular murderer is not that no one cares to find the murderer? If the murderer is caught while a dog abuser like Vick goes undetected, does that mean that those particular dogs are suffering due to a lack of concern on the public's part?

You see how easily this unravels. And he's the one getting a paycheck out of it.

Let's play devil's advocate, though, and pretend this guy is actually making a point that would be strong enough for a high school debate team. I still have answers.

First, we tend to consider helplessness in choosing what victims to care about. If a child is assaulted by a grown man, that concerns most of us more than if that same man assaults a 6 foot 240 pound weightlifter. Why? Because we figure the weightlifter is more capable of taking care of himself. If Vick had killed a bear that was on his property, instead of dogs, there wouldn't be a problem because few people would look at a bear coming at them and see it as helpless.

Dogs are, though, even pit bulls. Hito might take someone else apart, but he sees me as an authority figure, and is genetically predisposed to submit to me, as was Angus. I could, if I were scum, kill him by walking right up to him and doing it. I might have to do it fast, but Hito would let me get close enough to do it, and allow me whatever contact it took to do it. He trusts me. That is what makes it so bad. It isn't so much that we value dogs more than people, it's that we're appalled by such a gross violation of an innocent creature's trust. For the same reason we would want an adult to be imprisoned for assaulting a child, but would be inclined to let the weightlifter deal with his attacker and go about his business once the aggressor is properly folded, spidled, and mutilated.

That is not to say that adults can never be helpless. Of course they can. In general, however, people will always be considered more capable of taking care of themselves than domistcated animals are.

But beyond that, aren't we basically inured to violence against other people? We see it on the news every day. We understand that we don't see ALL of it because it simply would not be feasible to give every single act of violence against people media attention. There are only twenty four hours in a day, after all, and who has the constitution it would take to absorb it all? Even the most callous amongst us would eventually say "enough!"

We dismiss a lot of what we do see, anyway. Dead children in war zones are called "collateral damage." Every time there's a rape case in the media you can bet that someone will say she was asking for it by dressing or acting the way she did. Excuses are made for police that shoot down unarmed men that later turn out to be guilty only of not being white. Sympathy is given to kids that kill their parents because they claim to be abused. We are, on the whole, quick to find excuses for people that use violence, and quick to use violence in response.

If we weren't we wouldn't jump so quickly to war, and there would be no one downplaying the need for diplomacy prior to war, as we have in our country now. We wouldn't have the death penalty, either. We might, without the inuring, follow our oft-brandished religions and seek redemption for the guilty, rather than death.

We play violence, too. It's in our movies and TV shows. It's in our video games. Hell, it's in some of our board games (and I LIKE "Risk"). We teach it to our kids with toy guns and toy soldiers and games like "Cowboys and Indians", where there are no reasons, just one group of kids pretending to shoot another for no other reason than "They're the Indians."

I'm not saying these things cause violence, so unruffle those feathers. I'm saying that they blunt the edge of our attutude against it. Violence against people is something we live with every day, starting at a very young age. We become inured, to an extent. Those of us who don't eventually crack up.

We don't have such a daily exposure to violence against animals, however. Kids never play "Cows and Butchers." Children caught abusing animals are normally punished for it. And we don't see dogfights and cockfights in the news every single solitary day.

And yes, we love dogs, because their loyalty and love is so much easier to count on than another person's.

Does that answer your loaded question, Mr. Martin?