Well, the big story is finally out there. Here's a link to it.
I don't have any complaints about how Mr. Erard has quoted me -- there are no cheating ellipses or anything like that (except for one minor quibble below). I'm not at all surprised about which quotes he picked, either (what can I say, I was trying to make my point humorously). Readers of The Linguistics Wars will have a hard time not collapsing in laughter at Lakoff's rebuttal -- "more evidence for the models is on the way". There are a whole bunch of Lakoff (to appear), Ross (to appear) and other similar citations that, to be blunt, never appeared. I will, of course, be happy to read and comment on any such evidence if it does show up, but if it didn't in 500+ pages over two books, well...I'm not holding my breath.
I should clarify that, as I explained to Mr. Erard, the reason that I called the "Earth as Goddess" metaphor disastrous is that it produces negative results. Trying to frame environmentalist arguments in those terms is a loser with a broad spectrum of people, and I cited it in the interview as an example of something that sounds appealing to Lakoff precisely because he doesn't have a good handle on how other people will react to it.
I think I'll have a bit more to say on the article later, but for now, I commend it to readers as a good popular exposition of Lakoff's ideas, and a generally excellent piece of political journalism.
[Edited on 11/6/04 at 8:46 a.m. to clarify whose rebuttal is cited in the article.]