I've been encountering Ken Rockwell's diatribes against digital photography for years. He's a stuck-in-the-mud traditionalist who is secretly afraid that the ever increasing accessibility of newer technology is going to put him out of business.
Would you think any differently of this article if it said 'Canon 5D Mark II Video: Why I Don't Care what you can do with this camera right now in 2010'? Because I don't read the article as saying 'video on DSLRs will never be useful', just 'this is why video on DSLRs isn't as useful right now as you might think it is', and that's a useful piece of information if you're thinking about buying one of these cameras today.
That said, what's probably odd for a technology review is that the only bit of futurology is the sentence 'DSLRs are not yet optimized for focus for video shooting as are camcorders and pocket cameras.' Subtle use of 'yet' there: everything else discusses the here and now.
He does rail against much of the conventional wisdom, eg. more megapixels is better -- perhaps this is the source of your impression.
It's like with standardized testing: sometimes a number can hurt you, even if it's true, because its plain, seductive nature causes you to forget that it's not the end result, only a proxy for it.