the general approach is to assume that the underlying theory will be simple and elegant.

Family was alright - better than it has been in the past.  Everyone was congenial, everyone wanted to get along, so we did.  My mother argued with my cousin about whether you can quantify education.  They compromised and kept arguing, and the rest of us ate.  It's how to shut us up: feed us things.  I was pleasant.  It required me feigning great interest in things like the origin of champagne (Champagne, France) and the location of Barrow, Alaska.  Interestingly, this was the first year in a while that has not revolved around the grown-ups asking questions of the children ("so, Thomas, your father tells me you've been...").  Both children actually seem relatively normal and well this year, which may be why.  In fact, no one talked about themselves.  No one really talked about anything, to be honest.  Just massively overblown smalltalk and the running argument over numerical values of red and purple.  After my cousins went home my mother and uncle kept talking, reassuring to each other that yes, you can't quantify things.  My uncle had not participated in the debate at all until then, when his townhouse was half empty.  He wouldn't want to argue with his son.

Watched This Film Is Not Yet Rated.  It was interesting, although a bit beating-a-dead-horse, for me.  I liked the second half more than the first - what they said about the censorship of war movies was great.  The creators still presented run of the mill views regarding violence (censor censor, you don't know which underprivileged child will pick up a gun and fulfill his fate to become a statistic!), which was disappointing, but about what I've come to expect from people who've claimed the term "liberal". 

Also, Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated, and how can it not have something to do with the Pakistani shadow-military. 

It seems from my schooling that no political scientist studies violence unless they want more of it.  And we wonder why it continues.