“The Center for Consumer Freedom,” writes the Wall Street Journal on this morning’s editorial page, “raises a good question.” [subscription required] Should “Baywatch” star and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) celebrity supporter Pamela Anderson be held to her own rhetorical standards? The buxom star has criticized NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt Jr. for endorsing KFC, saying: “When you take a multimillion-dollar endorsement from a company, you must also take some responsibility for the company’s practices.” But Anderson lends her name to the radical PETA, which supports the restaurant-firebombing Animal Liberation Front. And PETA also opposes research that may lead to a cure for Anderson’s own disease.

The Journal points out a striking contradiction from the silicone-enhanced screen goddess. PETA opposes all animal testing:

That ought to be of interest to Ms. Anderson, who suffers from Hepatitis C, a virus that puts her at high risk for liver disease and liver cancer. The American Liver Foundation believes that animal testing is essential for finding a cure, and Ms. Anderson herself served in 2002 as grand marshal for an American Liver Foundation fund-raiser. Must have left her PETA T-shirt at home that day.

The Journal concludes with a simple question that we’ve raised before: “If KFC and Mr. Earnhardt are to be held accountable for their associates, what about PETA and Ms. Anderson?”