any perceived "problem" with the language occurs only when using poorly-designed editors,
If by "poorly designed editors" you mean any good code editor designed before Python...
Sorry, I think you've lost sight of reality.
Besides, any Well Designed code editor will have features for converting tabs to spaces (and vice versa) and features to auto indent and otherwise format code to your preferences.
As these are common and well-liked features of code editors, I find it odd that you'd call a program which included them as 'poorly designed'.
Ignoring that for just a moment, there is one unique problem that python has regardless of how good the editor is -- that's moving large blocks of code within or between source files. The editor will (in some cases) be forced to 'guess' at the intended indentation after the copy or move. In a language with traditionally delimited blocks, this isn't an issue as the average editor can automatically correct the indentation. No so with Python.
As a Python user, you should already be aware that the lexical analyzer adds indent and dedent tokens to mark blocks. When an editor is forced to guess, and guesses incorrectly, the tokens it generates for that purpose will also be wrong and it will improperly indent the code.
Why bring this up? It's a very weak argument against the use of meaningful whitespace, but it IS a clear problem with any language which uses meaningful whitespace the way python does which will exist regardless of the quality of the editor used.
It'd seem to me it's you who holds an irrational zeal against Python, apparently for bringing to light the shortcomings of your own tools.
Now I see why you're so irrational -- you struggle so with reading comprehension.
I've not said one word about hating python -- I've only talked about the problems with pythons meaningful whitespace.
But because I dared to criticize one aspect your sacred cow, you imagined that I was some sort of anti-python infidel.
As far as learning goes, the language I'd recommend varies depending on the context, with Software Engineers starting with Pascal then moving on to Ada, Computer Scientists learning Python followed by Haskell, and school-age children with either Python or Lua and then, if they're willing, C. Python is certainly not the "be all, end all" of programming languages, but neither is it the anti-christ as you treat it.
Again, I've only criticized one aspect of Python. The opinion you think I have was created whole from your imagination.
Still, your list does tell me one thing: Your advise is completely worthless.
Look at what you've produced: You took three completely random groups and wrote down which languages you (inexplicably) decided they should learn.
Here's a clue -- learning about programing has NOTHING to do with the language. Absolutely nothing. The principles taught don't change with the language.
The instructors choice of language, however, can make learning about programming easier or more difficult. That's all the impact it can have, and why this Slashdot article exists in the first place.
This is why your "software engineers should learn two nearly-dead procedural languages" and "computer scientists should learn my favorite language and a functional language" so laughable.
First, there is no reason why the students intended future profession should have any bearing on the curriculum -- the principles are the same, no matter what the student chooses to do in the future. As stated earlier, the principles you teach are the same no matter WHAT the language!
As for "school-age children" you should know (if you're handing out advice) that that covers a broad range of ages. (Consequently, a good chunk of the cognitive development spectrum.)
You should also know, that there has been a good deal of actual research done on the subject of teaching children about programming. Research of which you're clearly unaware.