The article in itself is quite enjoyable and defenately readable. Only one big question: why? You're describing a common technique which is almost outdated...
Anyways, i do have a bit more serious comments about it:
The article might be useful for someone who just starts out building a site and doesn't know her/his way with css yet. But in this case, the article imo will only confuse the one who wants to use it.
As you know, common practice is not only to read such articles, but also to look at the source, to see how it's actually done. Remember, that's one of the main reasons why the www grew so big in such a short time: code is easy to copy and use for one's own purpose.
That's the big critisism i have: back the whole article by coding as described in the article.
First the DTD you declare does not support the background property as you describe it for the TD tag. Adding to the confusion is that your code does use background="..." in TD (apart from one place).
Second your article starts with "But Ma, I don't want to learn CSS-P!", but yet the code is full of CSS...
. . . s k i n
I really see this article as a bit of catharsis, a cleansing of this section of my HTML coding style. Much like Nick's Murder Ballads, I see this as finishing off this type of code, wrapping it up in a nice little package and then being able to say, "That was then. This is now."
I can go on and more fully explore the CSS side of these issues, particularly CSS-P, and DOCTYPES, etc.
Having the page reflect the code was certainly not the intention, and I'm not sure that's appropriate for all article of this type. I could certainly infuse it with some more examples however. The few that I include are pretty weak, and could certainly be expanded and bolstered.
However, in terms of the page itself having CSS, it does. You're right, however its only used to style text. I specifically don't use CSS Positioning (CSS-P) in my layouts because of its unreliable support in so many browsers.
I'm not sure I can yet justify CSS-P, just yet. Soon, yes, but not just yet.