Finally and perhaps most importantly, there is Dana's obvious reluctance to embrace any part of the notion that Thermopylae was a kind of historical turning point for Western vs, Eastern civilization. But the fact is that these were two quite different civilizations and the Greeks did prevail in the end. That end came later the same year at the naval battle of Salamis when Athenian-led forces soundly defeated the Persian navy, rendering any further persian effort to push into Europe impossible (a wide range of modern historians agree that Salamis was one of history's true turning points). We don't know what would have happened if the Persians won, of course, but we can say that something other than the rise of Hellenic and later Roman civilization might well have dominated the development of the Mediterranean world for the next 10 centuries. If Dana doesn't think that's a big deal, he/she ought to go back to college.

Thermopylae, as such, may or may not have been decisive -- Salamis was. But it's entirely possible, even probable, that the stand at Thermopylae gave the Greeks -- Athens, in particular -- added time to prepare for Salamis. In any case, it was certainly an epic battle -- and we have a great deal of modern evidence of this, including painstaking archeological findings, as well as the word of ancient historians like Herotodus. Thermopylae in 480 B.C. was a narrow pass at a strategic bottleneck in the persian invasion of Greece. Under Leonidas's leadership, a force of what modern historians believe to have been 7,000 to 10,000 hoplites there confronted a Persian army of 200,000 to 350,000. At first, Xerxes tried to assault the Greeks, who arrayed their phalanxes across the breadth of the pass, directly but was repulsed with huge losses, due largely to the Greeks' superior tactics and weapons. Then, perhaps as the result of treachery by the storied Ephialtes, Xerxes learned of a path that allowed him to flank the Greeks, whereupon the Greek's position became militarily untenable. Leonidas, as any Greek general worth his salt would have done, personally led a small force to hold back the Persians while the rest of the Greek army withdrew. This small force consisted of 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians. They were attacked by an overwhelming Persian force but again exacted a large toll on Xerxes before being annilhilated.

This kind of sacrificial rear-guard action is common throughout the history of warfare at all levels of combat -- so it should not be thought peculiar to martial Spartans. The furious fighting of American surrounded American troops in December 1944 at the Bulge is a modern example of similar heroism.

Dana doesn't like war or heroism. That's a pity, because there are times and places where it matters a great deal to our civilization. In all likelihood, Thermopylae was such a place.

I, for the record, am going to see this movie...

I can't believe I'm explaining this, "No Name": the Geico Caveman ads are based on the premise that the human species Neanderthal were, in fact, less eveloved than Cro-Magnon man (that's us BTW), evidenced by the fact that the Neanderthal is now extinct. The point being - a Neanderthal (or caveman - they lived in caves) would probably be less computer saavy than a more evolved species - but still able to use Geico.com.

It has nothing to do with ugly. The cavemen in the ads are prototypical Neanderthal having large skulls with thick eyebrow ridges and big teeth. Its just accuracy - not making fun of ugly people. Some people might prefer the heavy-brow look - who are you to judge?

Sheesh! What a neanderthal!

Anyhoo, If you don't like them, that's a shame, because they're producing a TV pilot based on the Geico cavemen. They might be with us a while...

To my neo-con and not-so-neo-con friends posting to this letters page (my favorite is the guy who thought he had been "deleted" – and then reposted the same exact post: dude, there's a bit of "lag" time on the larger internet sites):

If you don't want to be called "Christo-fascists" then stop using the apparatus of the state to kill Muslims. It's really that simple.

That's alot of assumptions, Lola. One, that C.K. is entirely truthful about the lack of sex in his relationship (you'll find that exaggeration is an oft used comedic device) and two, that said lack would be because he didn't satisfy his partner.

I'm guessing you don't have children. Especially if both parents work, children can kill a "normal" sex life quite easily. There are many reasons for this but most have to do with exhaustion and lack of privacy. Every couple (including myself & my wife) I've ever been friends with always swear up and down that it'll never happen to them - and it happens to every one of us. Those who are more inclined to make our marriages work make up the difference in other ways - there's more to life that just sexual pleasure. Those who aren't so inclined, - and BTW you're comments are textbook in this concern - don't and usually end up cheating, divorcing or both.

I'm thinking, since your "bad sex" meme wasn't brought up at all before you're letter, you're actually doing a little "projecting" here. Get some relationship counseling, sweetie...