The station was designed by noted architect Theodore Link, and construction on it began in the early 1890s. Work was completed in 1894, and at the time of the station’s opening, it was the largest and busiest station in the world, serving over 100,000 passengers a day. During the early 20th century, it established itself as the most important train station in the Midwest, and, as a result, was a pivotal force in shaping American life during that period. Keep in mind that this was before the construction of passenger aircraft or the interstate highway system. Railroads were the primary mode of transport across long distances.

The station itself is constructed in the High Victorian style—specifically the Romanesque Revival style—common of late 19th-century train stations. This is marked by the simple arches found within the station and the abundance of windows. Most notable is the “Allegorical Window,” a masterpiece featuring three women, corresponding to the three great train stations of the late 19th century—New York’s, St. Louis’, and San Francisco’s.

After its completion, the station functioned as the main gateway to the West—a moniker by which St. Louis is known—for many years, processing up to 400 trains a day before and during World War II.

After the war, however, service began to decline and continued to slide until 1961, by which time many of the tracks had been replaced with parking lots. The station gained national prominence again briefly in 1948, when Harry Truman was photographed there with the famous “Dewey Defeats Truman” Chicago Tribune headline—incorrectly referring to the results of the presidential election, in which Harry Truman defeated Thomas Dewey. Throughout this period, however, it became more and more fiscally impractical to continue to operate the station, which had very high overhead due to its large size and elaborate design.

Throughout the ’60s and early ’70s, minimal transportation services continued to operate out of the station, until Amtrak pulled out of the station in 1978, citing financial reasons. Amtrak service currently operates out of the Gateway Multimodal Transportation Center.

In 1985, following a $150 million remodeling—the largest conversion project to that date in the United States—the station reopened as a hotel, currently a Marriott, with a mall attached.

In addition to the shopping center, Union Station houses a plaza for concerts, festivals and other miscellaneous events.

Though not the architect’s intention, the shopping mall seems to have meshed well with the design of the station. A mixture of eclectic, almost art nouveau architectural trappings now lie alongside more modern storefronts. The juxtaposition seems to work, however. It is strangely reminiscent of Platform 9 3/4 from the Harry Potter films, full of dark railroad metal. At the same time, the current era leaves its mark on the station, with bright signs and restaurants like the Hard Rock Café.

The St. Louis Union Station is a remnant of past generations, when railroads were the primary form of cross-national transportation. Its historical significance is undeniable though it has greatly changed, and it remains a notable and important location to see. I strongly encourage Wash. U. students to visit and explore the station. The Grand Hall—an arched, highly ornate lounge—is especially worth a visit.

St. Louis Union Station can be reached by light rail or by car. If using public transportation, take the MetroLink east to Union Station and walk one block north. If driving, follow I-64 E and take exit 38C. The station is located at 1820 Market Street.

Well, a lot, apparently.

With all the gratuitous slow-motion tomahawk throwing, spurting of synthetic blood and pervasive, testosterone-fueled sense of one-upmanship,  this show was definitely produced with the “300” crowd in mind, right down to the grisly-voiced commentator, a knock-off of the “300” narrator. Unfortunately, the whole act becomes childish, essentially devolving into a name-calling “my-rifle-is-bigger-than-your-scimitar” match.

In the first episode, this materializes as a hypothetical match between an Apache warrior and a Roman gladiator. An army combat instructor (named Snake Blocker!) and a champion knife fighter represent the Apaches, while Team Gladiator is comprised of a weapons historian and mixed martial artist champion Chuck “The Iceman” Liddell. But the weapons demonstrations quickly dissolve into alarmingly serious taunts that become awkward to watch. Think “Mythbusters” with no sense of irony.

The weapon demonstrations themselves are hit and miss. Most viewers, I’m assuming, are familiar with the basic precept of a bow and arrow and don’t need to be subjected to (several) slow-motion shots of an Apache doing target shooting.

Others were pretty fun though, especially watching Liddell pummel a side of beef with “scissors,” essentially a covered gauntlet with a crescent blade on top. In three jabs, he literally cuts a cow in half.

But the truly disappointing aspect of the show is that the fighters never actually battle. After 55 minutes of watching the experts crack some model skulls with tomahawks and exhibit the deadly prowess of a gladiator with a trident and net, the climax is a staggeringly dull computer simulation, which is never explained and merely crunches some arbitrary numbers invented by the core panel of a doctor, biomedical engineer and computer programmer—which raises the question: Why does a computer programmer get a vote, anyway?

The results are then performed by reenactors, meaning that watching The History Channel for about six minutes would give you a better chance of seeing some brutal, historical (scripted) violence. If you’re interested, the computer thinks an Apache brave would beat a gladiator, presumably because in the reenactment, only the Apache retains the ability to move laterally while the gladiator voluntarily removes his armor and is momentarily confounded by a tree. Upon victory, the wildly ululating brave fulfills xenophobic renderings of Native Americans by drinking the blood of the defeated.

If you love non-self-aware comedy or are a 12-year-old boy, stay tuned for upcoming battles such as Yakuza vs. Mafia, Maori vs. Shaolin Monks, William Wallace vs. Shaka Zulu, Ninja vs. Spartan and Taliban vs. IRA.

“Deadliest Warrior” airs Tuesdays at 9 p.m. (CDT) on Spike.

Grant mentions in the introduction that her “highlight came when [her parents] began, spontaneously, talking about their pasts: retelling luscious stories of their youth and coming-of-age tale about college and drawing portraits of their social circle. Yet each account was tainted, almost invariably, by the racism they confronted as African Americans.” The book highlights many of these instances, some of them hilarious, others regretfully painful.

The book’s characterization as a civil rights text should not put off readers; it as much a tale of the struggle as it is the people, particularly Mr. Grant, and how he managed to neither suffer nor struggle but thrive during the mid-1900s.

Grant’s language is wonderfully down to earth, with well-placed artistic flourishes. There is a lot of information covered, including details of the life of both Grant’s grandparents, her parent’s incredible circle of friends and associates (including Cab Calloway and Thurgood Marshall) and her upbringing in a “white” neighborhood.

The plethora of information, however, is not necessarily organized well. The subjects stay within the context of the chapter but she tends to change subjects from paragraph to paragraph. This causes the flow of the history to feel patched and unchronological.

The story also contains confusing transitions, where the author draws upon outside source quotes from people who witnessed events. Otherwise, it is still navigable, and one should not shun this impressive recounting of a noble family in a difficult time.

Although the book is described as a biography of Grant’s father, the volume reads more like a memoir. Not to underestimate his fascinating legal career, but the book begins with his parents and ends with his children, as if his life began before him and will continue on with his children: The book was more about Grant’s own heritage than a simple story of her father.

Readers have the opportunity to pick up a copy of the book and meet Gail Milissa Grant for a lecture and book signing this Sunday, Oct. 19, at the Missouri History Museum at 1 p.m.

For every election cycle since 1992, the University has been slated to host the presidential candidates in a debate, and—aside from a last-moment cancellation in 1996—has successfully done so.

The University’s positive record for the events governed the decision by the Commission on Presidential Debates to give it its fifth bid at a debate, this time between vice presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.

“We’ve proven ourselves over and over that we can do this, that this is a great place to host a debate, and that our students are helpful want to be right in the middle of everything,” Associate Vice Chancellor Steve Givens, who chaired the steering committee for the debates in 2000 and 2004, said.

The University showed its ability after its first hosting in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush squared off against then-Governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton. After the Commission’s first choice site was unable to hold the debate, it gave the University the opportunity with one week’s notice. Planners had to compress nearly a year’s planning into seven days.

“It was obviously a crazy time, but we proved to ourselves that we could do this and we knew that if given more time, we could do a better job,” Givens said. “We very quickly divided up what needed to be done, and it was a matter of divide and conquer.”

Burnished by its timely performance four years earlier, the University was once again selected to host the debate in 1996. Because the Commission decided to reduce the three debates to two, however, the event was cancelled.

Nonetheless, the Commission contacted the University again in 2000 and 2004. Givens, calling the University the “gold standard” of debate sites, attributed its success to a combination of factors, including a location conducive to such events.

“One of the things that makes this a great site is the [Athletic Complex]. You not only have the debate itself but six to seven hundred media members filling up the rec. gym,” he said.

Looking forward to this year’s debate, Givens said the University’s preparations have not changed due to this one’s featuring the vice presidential candidates. Because of expanding Internet media, moreover, he predicts that this debate will feature more journalists than previous years.

“Every usable space in the AC will be taken over entirely,” Givens said.

Alumnus Philip Sholts, who graduated in 2008 and currently works in St. Louis, remembers the 2004 debate as a time of elevated student excitement and minimal security hassles.

“There were a few checkpoints around campus where security guards or police officers would check your ID to verify you were a Wash. U. student,” Sholts said. “But it was never really a big issue.”

Sholts noted that all streets surrounding the University were shut down on the day of the debate. Others do not recall significant security concerns in the past.

“To be honest, the security didn’t really interfere with me at all as a student,” Rachel Fitz, another alumnus who viewed the 2004 debate first-hand as a freshman, said. “On the day of the debate, parking on campus was impossible, but that was to be expected.”