On Sunday, the New York Times ran a piece about the tremendous comeback of a bygone pastime in Afghanistan: the "sport" of dogfighting.

Only dogfighting never really went away, it just went behind the scenes while the Taliban ruled that country. Dogfighting, you see, breaks Islamic law, so it makes sense that Taliban leaders took a hard stance against it.

With the Taliban overturned, dogfighting is back in force, and in broad daylight. Trainers whose mixed-breed mastiffs are so large they could be mistaken for small bears, according to the Times, stand to make up to $50,000 for one fight. It's like winning the lottery there.

But the money, the article reports, is often the smallest incentive: "'It's something from our ancestors,' said Ghulam Yahya Amirzadah, 21, whose family owns 17 dogs in Kabul and in their hometown in the northwest province of Badghis.

Mr. Amirzadah, who is known in dogfighting circles as Lala Herati, said he inherited the pastime from his father, who ran fighting dogs in his youth.

"It's not about money," Mr. Amirzadah said. "If my dog beats another dog, it makes me feel like I've won $100,000. I can survive just from the happiness."

As I read this fascinating -- and alarming -- story, I waited for some mention of the cruelty of dogfighting. None came. Yet, this is the same paper that published other, damning articles about the horrors of dogfighting, and the people who keep it going. The story of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick and his dogfighting ring drew fire from the Times in 2007.

The only difference between the details of the various stories is location: It seems that if dogfighting occurs in Afghanistan, it's OK, because it represents a return to freedom from a despotic regime. But if it occurs here, it's a despicable offense of everything we hold to be decent and humane.

I understand that the Times is a newspaper, and newspapers report the news. I don't fault the paper for the story; I fault it for failing to acknowledge even one negative aspect of this popular torture of dogs, while its coverage of the same activity in the US focuses on the gory, horrible facts.

Traditions are one thing; double-standards are another. If human rights are deemed universal, why not animal rights?

[Image: Tyler Hicks for the New York Times]