First of all, like you've mentioned, his C++ example code is bogus.
Second of all he says "modern funkiness of dynamic languages" only to continue with lambda, map/reduce and type independence. The first two are unrelated to dynamic/static typing, the latter is incorrect or badly phrased. You don't get "type independence" in dynamic typed languages, the types are still there.
Thirdly, he greatly exagerates the complexity of templates (thousands of incorrect syntax options for smart pointers, all you have is a hammer, etc)
It's a classic case of fishing for arguments to support an idea.
First of all, like you've mentioned, his C++ example code is bogus. Second of all he says "modern funkiness of dynamic languages" only to continue with lambda, map/reduce and type independence. The first two are unrelated to dynamic/static typing, the latter is incorrect or badly phrased. You don't get "type independence" in dynamic typed languages, the types are still there. Thirdly, he greatly exagerates the complexity of templates (thousands of incorrect syntax options for smart pointers, all you have is a hammer, etc)
It's a classic case of fishing for arguments to support an idea.