Why is "old" and such a bad word?

When Rodrigo and Iago are speaking with one another in Act 1 Scene 1, they discuss how Iago was not chosen for a promotion and instead a mathemitician, Michael Cassilo was. "...Michael Cassio, a Florentine that never set a squadron in the field, nor the division of a battle knows more than a spinster, unless the bookish theoretic...Mere prattle without practice is all his soldiership...and I ( of whom his eyes had seen proof at Rhodes, at Cyprus and on other grounds Christened and heathen) must be beleed and calmed by debtor and creditor" (4). In other word's Iago had not been chosen to recieve this promotion because someone who had been more educated would have been thought to do better in this military setting. However, one has to wonder what sense this makes. Iago has had more experience in actual battle than Michael and should be more suited for the promotion. What had to have won over Othello in his decision is idealism.

In a perfect world, Michael's education probaly would help hijm in strategy and make him a better candidate than Iago. Unfortunately though, the world is not perfect. The battle field is not always a perfect place. War involves much improvising and acting quickly. Often the difference between life and death is separated by just a second or two. There is no time for a "bookish theoretic" who has no experience in war to start making new battle formations or designing mathematical models to understand why a cannon may not be hitting its normal trajectory. If the enemy is overruning the trenches, one might just have to pick up a gun and fight his way out. A textbook will not save you. Iago would have been better suited for this situation.

Besides idealism, I think that argument of change and tradition may also play a role in situations like Iago's. One can argue that Othello went against tradition and chose the mathemitician because of the unconventional skill that mathematics would provide. If this is true, then one might wonder if throughout history and literature if the words "new", "change" and "unconventional" have had some inherently good meaning. Analyzing this now, I think I have always had a positive connotation for these words. However, by strict deffinition, these words are just used to describe something that was previously unavailable or attainable. It could be either good or bad. Michael's math could have also hurt the Italian army there is no guarantee that it would help it.

Over spring break I watched a Clint Eastwood movie, Heartbreak Ridge that had a similar theme. Eastwood played the role of an old, "washed up" Korean and Vietnam War veteran named Sergeant Highway. Although this character had many years of experience and in the military, he recieved little respect mainly due to his age. The younger marines mocked him for his age. When he decided to take a job training new, youthful marines, this is especially evident. One fellow officer remarked, "I ask for marines but the division sends me relics." Fortunately for Highway, he proves his worth throughout the movie including one of the last scenes of bootcamp. He fights the other marine who made a remark about his age. Highway punches the young marine in the face and knocks him out. Eventually he becomes the hero of the movie and shows that with age comes experience.

I think this idea of novelness and tradition pertain to our present day lives very much. This is the case especially with the primary elections. One candidate in particular who likes to preach about change is Barr0ck Obama (I know I can't spell it). In fact this seems to be his campaign motto. I think Obama is a qualified candidate, but I am not sure I like change in everything. Im sure change can be positive at times and it could be for the better, but it could also be for the worst. Obama talks about how drastical change is great and what our country needs. After thinking about Heartbreak Ridge and Othello, Im not so sure. In those two examples, the character who would have done the better job would have been the traditional and more conservative type. Why do we need a brand new president to change everything? Our country is in the best and most stable economic shape in the world. Why not have a president who keeps everything the same? I know this is cliche and over-used, but "Why fix something if it ain't broke?'

This is the trailer for the movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eM8dd1k0FM&feature=related

This is Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp30iKrRafQ&feature=related