I'm curious about this book... I think I'll read it.

I'm a bit miffed about the following segment of the review, however :

Lakoff’s proposal to reframe taxes as membership fees flunks the test: if you don’t pay your membership fees, you lose your benefits; but if you don’t pay your taxes, you go to jail.

I should think that going to jail is directly analagous to "losing your benefits" in some organization of which you are a member. In jail, you lose the benefits (freedom, employment, etc.) granted to the rest of the citizenry.

I'm not seeking necessarily to defend this particular frame of Lakoff's, just arguing that Mr. Saletan didn't convincingly dismiss it, I don't think.

As for this...

If frames overpower rational criticism, Pinker asks, then why do Lakoff and other quasi-relativists write books rationally criticizing frames? The medium belies the message.

I disagree. When Lakoff or someone in his camp say that "frames overpower rational criticism", they mean that in aggregate, frames represent a more reliable mechanism for convincing people of an underlying "truth". Individuals may or may not be swayed by it, but you can't necessarily analyse groups as collections of individuals. Some individuals are smarter than others, or more interested in rational analysis, or more prone to skepticism, or whatever.

In short, the percentage of people who will read Lakoff's or Pinker's books is small and these are, by self selection, in the group that values rational analysis, for the most part. For them, it's a valid medium, and a valid message.