Let's get on with it.
Java's got its strengths and weaknesses, like anything else. In any case, it's not going to be fading into the sunset anytime soon, and these religious wars aren't going to change that. The final slap aside, the article isn't about Java's worth; it's about its security issues.
Nearly all of Java's core is under GPL and the community, if it hasn't already, needs to get busy fixing these holes, as history shows such communities are wont to do, and promptly. I am a little surprised, actually, that Java has lagged behind on the security issue as much as it has--unless it's the sliver of it that's still proprietary (I think...) that has the problems.
(Ok, my own salvo: OOo will mostly run without a JVM, but some important parts won't. You need a JVM, for instance, to connect to an SQL server with JDBC. And let's forget ODBC. As a C/C++ type from way back (mostly the former), I like Java, but also admit that I haven't touched Python yet, so I can't compare the two.)
(Interesting observation: As I write this, I see a new headline pop up about a Linux vulnerability that allows local users to escalate privileges illegally. Article also says that the fix has been committed already, and has been. Seems to be the way things happen much of the time: open source projects fix their problems before they can even make it to print. Let's do that for Java now, too.)