A history of political violence. Early in the morning on Saturday, June 14, a man drove a black SUV with flashing police lights to the home of Minnesota state Representative Melissa Hortman, a top Democrat in the state legislature. He was wearing a badge and tactical vest and carried a taser. When she answered the door, he introduced himself as a police officer—and then shot and killed her and her husband, Mark.

Now infamously, he wasn’t a cop. He was planning a killing spree in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Before assassinating the Hortmans, he shot state Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. When the true police caught him the next day, they found a list of about 70 intended targets—mostly Democratic politicians but also doctors and officials at Planned Parenthood centers.

On the same day as the killings in Minnesota, Arthur Folasa Ah Loo was shot and killed while demonstrating in Salt Lake City as part of the nationwide protests against U.S. President Donald Trump. At another demonstration, in Culpepper, Virginia, a man drove an SUV into a crowd of protesters.

Neither are these the only recent examples of political violence in America. Just in the last three months, Pennsylvania’s Governor Josh Shapiro’s house was set on fire while he and his family were asleep inside; two Israeli Embassy workers were shot and killed in Washington, D.C.; protesters in Boulder, Colorado, calling for the release of Israeli hostages were set on fire; and in New Mexico, the Republican Party headquarters was firebombed—along with a Tesla dealership.

It seems political violence in America is getting worse.

Is it?

—Michael Bluhm

Addictive consumer technology is getting to kids. A massive study on children’s screen time and mental health—following more than 4,200 young people across the U.S. for four years, and published on Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association—found no correlation between the longer screen time at age 10 and suicidal behaviors at age 14. It found something more specific.

The children most at risk for suicidal tendencies were those who used technology in an addictive way—meaning, they had trouble putting it down or felt the need to use it more and more. At age 14, kids with high or increasingly addictive behaviors were two to three times as likely as the others to have suicidal thoughts or to harm themselves.

The problem is, addictive usage is very common. When it comes to mobile phones, almost half of the children showed addictive usage. And addictive usage is more common among minorities and children in families at lower socio-economic levels.

So what now?

‘Mysterious Girl.’ This single, from Los Angeles-based Neggy Gemmy’s upcoming album, is a perfect lost Saint Etienne song. It begins with a flute loop, then the 1990s club beats come in, and we’re off to the races. And what about this mysterious girl? “She smells of L.A. / She’s only going to break your heart.”

—Brendan Hasenstab

Global conflict is on the rise. The number of state-based, armed conflicts recorded last year was the highest since 1946, topping the record set the previous year, according to a report released on Monday by the Peace Research Institute Oslo.

Across 36 countries, there were 61 state-based, armed conflicts—28 in Africa, the highest number on any continent.

Almost 130,000 people died in conflicts worldwide last year, the vast majority in the Ukraine war and Gaza. Largely because of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the past three years have recorded more conflict-related deaths than any other period in the last 30.

“The world today is far more violent, and far more fragmented, than it was a decade ago,” says Siri Aas Rustad, the author of the study.

Why so much fighting?

Israel vs. Iran vs. …? All week, Israel and Iran attacked one another through the air. On Friday, Israeli jets hit targets across Iran, while an Iranian missile damaged several buildings in Beersheba, in southern Israel—a day after another missile struck the region’s main hospital, wounding more than 240 people.

On Friday, European diplomats met with Iranian officials to negotiate over Tehran’s nuclear program and find a way out of the conflict. The Europeans didn’t say whether they’d made any progress; Iran says it would consider diplomacy only after Israel stopped its attacks.

Meanwhile, the big question is whether the U.S. will join Israel in attacking Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asked U.S. President Donald Trump to work with Israel. On Thursday, Trump said he would take two weeks to decide.

What exactly would it mean for the U.S. to join the war?

‘Miraverahí.’ Buscabulla is a duo that met and started working together in Brooklyn, though they’re both from Puerto Rico. This track is off their just-released record, Se Amaba Así—and you’ll hear a lot of Brooklyn synth-pop in it. The album title translates to “The way love was.” It’s their first new recording since they were vaulted into prominence through a collaboration with Bad Bunny on his 2022 album, Un Verano Sin T.

Bad Bunny?

—Brendan Hasenstab

Anything you can do. How important is innovation to winning wars? Matthew A. Tattar, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College, thinks it’s less important than conventional wisdom would have it. To win wars, military leaders often think they have to innovate as early as possible once the fighting starts—and as often as possible as it progresses. This idea is reflected, for example, in many of the breathless reports from the battlefields of Ukraine on the race for the latest drone technology. Tech, of course, is crucial in combat. But in Innovation and Adaptation in War, Tattar makes the case that militaries imitate and learn to counter new technology so swiftly that the benefits of being the first to have it evaporate before long. By now, for instance, both Ukraine and Russia have drones—and both sides know how to counter them. Adapting, not innovating, is what matters most. … See Michael Bluhm, “Welcome to the machine.”

—Gustav Jönsson

‘Yowzers.’ This majestic piano-and-vocals track is a blues for climate change from Ben LaMar Gay, the Chicago-based cornetist and composer: “Ain’t gon’ snow no more / Rain gon’ pour and pour / Fire don’t stop no more.” The jazz flourishes here build to a sense of cataclysm.

—Brendan Hasenstab

One step forward, one back. As protesters and law enforcement clashed in Los Angeles throughout the week, one of the most striking and defining images of the battle over immigration in the U.S. has been the Mexican flag. It’s become divisive: Many protesters carry it as a sign of support for Mexican immigrants; others, for other reasons—including, apparently, as a symbol that American citizens with roots in Mexico are Americans, too. Critics say it shows the pervasiveness of illegal immigrants in the city—and an unpatriotic, anti-American sentiment.

But meanwhile, Mexico itself just began an experiment that many are now saying could be a turning point for democracy in the country: On June 1, voters elected judges nationwide, as Mexico became the first country to choose all judges through popular elections. Half of all judicial offices were on the ballot in early June; the other half will be elected in 2027.

Former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, known as AMLO, proposed the new system, saying that giving voters control over judges would root out corruption and elitism in the judiciary and help cut down on the widespread violence of the country’s drug cartels—and the culture of impunity reinforced by lax prosecution. The change, AMLO said, would also rein in the damage done by powerful foreign corporations: “The corrupt judges—are they going to continue defending foreign companies that come to loot, rob, and affect the economy of Mexicans?”

Yet critics call the popular election of judges a grave threat to the country’s democracy. Local and international business elites, bar associations, and democracy activists argue that elections would only serve to increase the power of AMLO’s political party, the Movement for National Regeneration, or Morena, which controls most state governments—and handled the decisions about which candidates appeared on ballots. Critics point out that the Supreme Court blocked many of AMLO’s constitutional reforms, and the elections give Morena a chance at a more favorable Court.

In the end, only 13 percent of the electorate cast ballots, and Morena’s preferred candidates seem to have won in many jurisdictions—including a majority on the Supreme Court.

What’s all this mean for democracy in Mexico?

—Michael Bluhm