by Cindy Harper, Reclaim The Net: Spain’s social media ban for minors doubles as a test case for Europe’s expanding digital ID surveillance. Spain plans to bar children under 16 from using social media, marking one of the most aggressive online age restrictions in Europe, and another government is moving to introduce online digital ID. […]

from The Asian Guy: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

“The platonic ideal chili.” READ MORE...

  Around 12,000 years ago, human society began to shift from a nomadic, hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a sedentary, pastoralist, and farming lifestyle. This unprecedented change brought with it many advantages as well as disadvantages, as human beings took opportunities, but also struggled to adapt to the massive changes.   This article examines how human beings lived during the Neolithic Period and how they evolved from small, nomadic groups to organized societies, ultimately building the first cities.   A New Stone Age Neolithic tools. Source: iStock   The Neolithic Era was a transitional phase of human development. It started around 10,000 BCE after the Palaeolithic Era, and was characterized by the movement away from a nomadic lifestyle towards more sedentary living. While the region of the Fertile Crescent was the first to experience this change, it occurred in different parts of the world at different times in prehistory.   The Neolithic Era was also characterized by a huge change in how food was sourced. Hunting and gathering, a lifestyle that existed for about two million years and predated Homo sapiens, gave way to farming crops and cattle.   In the Middle East, where the Neolithic first began, wheat, barley, and legumes were major crops that were cultivated, while sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs were domesticated.   Farms, Villages, and a Host of New Challenges Diorama of an early Neolithic village. Source: Biswarup Ganguly/Wikimedia Commons   The Neolithic Revolution was not a smooth process, nor was it clear and immediate. It was a gradual transition that took thousands of years and was by no means universal. The lives of those who lived through it, similarly, were not all the same, but were vastly different from their hunter-gatherer predecessors who lived during the Palaeolithic.   One of the biggest changes was that people no longer had to comb the wilderness for food. While hunting and gathering may have supplemented the new lifestyles, the nomadic lifestyle of the hunter-gatherer was on its way out. The opportunity to get food from farming ensured the potential for food security like never before. This led to larger groups living together, as the food output could support bigger populations. While food security is a definite advantage, there were many drawbacks and challenges that developed as a result of the Neolithic transition.   Barley was a major source of food during the Neolithic Era. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Living in close proximity in larger groups, as well as with domesticated animals, brought with it an increase in disease transmission. Neolithic health suffered as a result, especially since the diet was poorer. The less varied diet led to people being shorter and having less natural immunity to diseases. Dental problems were particularly bad. The new carbohydrate-based diet created a haven for bacteria to thrive in the human mouth, and Neolithic peoples had a far greater number of cavities than their Palaeolithic ancestors.   Medical issues, of course, weren’t the only problems. For the most part, Neolithic societies maintained an egalitarian lifestyle, but villages and towns eventually gave way to cities, and populations became so big that social stratification developed. While some people found themselves benefitting from the changes, the vast majority found themselves laboring away for relatively less reward, especially towards the end of the Neolithic and into the early Bronze Age. While some societies practiced a more egalitarian way of life for thousands of years, there was a trend towards hierarchies that continued on the same trajectory for thousands of years, culminating in Bronze Age monarchies.   Settlement and Daily Work Diorama of a Neolithic house from the Archaeological Museum of Karditsa. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Before the advent of the Neolithic Revolution, life was a rhythm of constant change. Especially when it came to looking out over the horizon. Nomadic lifestyles ensured that the view was rarely the same. The Neolithic Revolution changed this, and people got used to seeing the same surroundings each day when they woke up.   Sedentary living required permanent structures to protect people from the elements. These were the first permanent homes and were made from materials that were locally sourced. Clay, wood, reeds, mud bricks, wattle and daub, and stone were available resources. The Neolithic wasn’t uniform, and different settlements had various contrasts in resources and building techniques. For the most part, however, houses were simple one-bedroom affairs, with a place to cook and a place to sleep. As the Neolithic progressed, the need for more complex buildings arose. Houses were built with multiple rooms, and granaries were commonplace for storing grain, as were silos or storage pits. Enclosures would have also been necessary at this time to keep livestock from wandering.   Cats helped keep grain stores free of pests. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Instead of food gathering being opportunistic in nature, as it was during the Palaeolithic, food sources now needed to be protected. The role of dogs changed from hunting to guarding, while cats provided invaluable services in keeping grain stores free of rodents. Both these animals also provided companionship.   Daily life during the Neolithic revolved around many things, but food cultivation was vital. Grain was one of the main sources of food, and a variety of new tools were invented to process it. Days were often spent sowing seeds, harvesting grain and other crops, or grinding wheat and barley into flour. Other farmers tended to their flocks, while some still took opportunities to hunt and forage. It is important to note that the Neolithic Revolution was not immediate. Hunting and gathering still played important parts in Neolithic culture for thousands of years.   A primitive weaving stand at the Open-Air Museum of Százhalombatta/Hungary. Source: Wikimedia Commons   With secure food production, other activities became available that were not directly related to the production of food. Flax and wool were valuable in textile production, providing clothes and blankets. Reeds were woven into baskets. Stone tools were produced in increasing complexity. And of course, clay was turned into pottery, changing the way humans stored and cooked food, and serving as an outlet for artistic expression. The rise of metallurgical practices (especially during the Chalcolithic Age when the Neolithic transitioned into the Bronze Age) also generated a surge in tool making and weaponsmithing, along with intricate jewelsmithing, which had before been characterized by beads and shells.   With the advent of specialized industries came the division of labor, and people found themselves set in particular roles. This included gender roles. With long agricultural histories and advanced technology came a higher rate of fertility and a diminished role for women outside the home, although the exact nature of this is highly debatable.   The Tools That Changed Life Neolithic stone tools. Source: Wikimedia Commons   While stone tools continued to play a dominant role, new methods in their production significantly improved their efficacy. Instead of only flaking chips off stone to create the desired shape, stones were also ground and polished into their new forms. These new forms were more durable than their predecessors. Different types of rock were used, each with its own unique qualities, and were traded with other settlements and villages. So important were these tools that they became venerated and were important enough to accompany the dead in their barrows.   Polished stone tools were more efficient in working other materials like wood and leather, and so became the norm. Expanding agriculture also meant the removal of forests, and axes that could clear these trees efficiently were in demand. Specific types of rocks were preferred for different tools, and quarries where certain stone could be found traded in rough stone, which would be polished into shape by the consumer.   Along with axes and scrapers, there were myriad stone tools such as adzes, sickles, grinding stones, and mortars and pestles for preparing food. Of course, stone wasn’t the only resource used to make tools. Wood, antler, bone, leather, clay, and reeds were also used for various purposes. These indicated a dynamic and varied society in which there were many tasks that needed to be attended to.   Neolithic people engaged in many of these activities, but as the millennia passed and society progressed, people likely became locked into specific tasks, creating implements or trading goods for services.   Changing Cultures and New Beliefs A 9000-year-old skull from Jericho, clearly showing the use of cowry shells impressed into the eye sockets as a funerary rite symbolic of spiritual belief. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Flickr   The Neolithic Era was broad and encompassed changing times. Over the course of its duration, settlements and villages appeared and disappeared. A few transformed into the first cities. Social dynamics in these new places were subject to cultural mores and traditions that were by no means universal.   There were, however, trends that emerged in the way societies operated during the New Stone Age. Many people were required to work on farms, and land ownership was a driving factor in the creation of hierarchies. Nevertheless, there was evidence of communal ways of living, and not all settlements adopted the same practices.   Protecting farms and produce was also a necessity. And if a settlement lacked food or suffered a disaster that destroyed their food supplies, the next best option would be to take it from their neighbor. War in the Neolithic was always a threat. Spears and bows, once used for hunting game, were turned on human targets in an attempt to gain resources and territory from other settlements. There has also been evidence of slavery as well as conflict as a means to secure women.   Göbekli Tepe. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Neolithic was also a huge time for the advancement of artistic expression. While pottery was generally a vector for this expression, megalithic structures were also important, not just for the creativity that went into them, but for the religious purpose they served and the immense amount of work needed to create them. Such examples include Göbekli Tepe and Stonehenge. Artists need not have focused on the architecturally impressive, however. Clay was used to fashion numerous items, from tools to religious figurines, and even toys.   Religion, of course, played a huge part in the lives of Neolithic people. It likely guided social norms and informed day-to-day life in some ways. There was animism and ancestor worship, along with complex burials and burial rites that offer modern humans a glimpse into how Neolithic people viewed the world.   An Enduring Social Fabric A diorama of Neolithic people. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Flickr   Although many societies during the Neolithic were egalitarian, the Neolithic represented a move towards hierarchical structures that persisted to the present day. Specifically, those with wealth have increased power, while “lower classes” such as workers must sell their labor to survive.   This can be argued to be an innate quality of civilization, the foundations of which were laid when, 12,000 years ago, people decided to sow seeds by the banks of a river. Little did they know they were setting humanity on a trajectory that would upset hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) on Tuesday became the first major medical organization to oppose gender transition for minors when it recommended “that surgeons delay gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old.” The ASPS represents “more than 11,000 physician members worldwide,” which is more than the number of surgeons the American Board of Plastic Surgery has certified since 1937. In support of this recommendation, the ASPS cited “recent publications reporting very low/low certainty of evidence regarding mental health outcomes,” “emerging concerns about potential long-term harms and the irreversible nature of surgical interventions,” and “insufficient evidence demonstrating a favorable risk-benefit ratio.” ASPS previously joined with other mainstream medical organizations in supporting gender transition surgeries for minors. However, it moderated its stance two years ago. “In August 2024, ASPS communicated to members that the Society had not endorsed any external organization’s clinical practice guidelines or recommendations for the treatment of children or adolescents with gender dysphoria,” ASPS described, citing the “considerable uncertainty” over such treatments. Since then, “ASPS’s understanding has continued to evolve in light of additional comprehensive evidence reviews,” the statement explained, including the United Kingdom’s Cass Review and the 2025 review by the Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services. “In some areas,” the statement summarized, these reviews “have contributed to a clearer understanding of potential harms, while also highlighting limitations of the available evidence, including gaps in documenting long-term physical, psychological, and psychosocial outcomes.” Indeed, “available evidence” was a fundamental theme of the ASPS’s new position statement. “Available evidence suggests that a substantial proportion of children with prepubertal onset gender dysphoria experience resolution or significant reduction of distress by the time they reach adulthood, absent medical or surgical intervention,” they wrote. “Evidence regarding adolescent-onset presentation, which has become increasingly common since the mid-2010s, is more limited but similarly does not allow for confident prediction of long-term trajectories.” “Importantly, clinicians, even those with extensive experience, currently lack reliable methods to distinguish those whose distress will persist from those whose distress will remit,” the ASPS noted. “The HHS report underscores that this uncertainty has significant ethical implications: when the likelihood of spontaneous resolution is unknown and when irreversible interventions carry known and plausible risks, adhering to the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence (i.e., promoting health and well-being while avoiding harm) requires a precautionary approach.” Despite the fact that “many plastic surgical clinical recommendations and standards rely on lower levels of evidence compared to those of other medical specialties,” they wrote, “ethical decision-making in medicine does not depend on evidence quality alone, but on the relationship between evidence uncertainty, anticipated benefit, potential harm, and patient vulnerability.” The statement committed to an “ongoing review of emerging evidence and to revisiting this position as higher-quality data become available. Should the evidence base evolve to demonstrate clear benefit with acceptable risk, ASPS will reassess its recommendations accordingly.” Naturally, the medical organization committed itself to its new evidence-based position so long as this is the position warranted by the evidence. In reaching this decision, the statement appealed to the ASPS Code of Ethics, which pledges “full respect for human dignity.” The language of human dignity reflects a view of human nature informed by a biblical worldview, which undergirds human dignity with the fact that “God created man in his own image” (Genesis 1:27). A modern, naturalistic conception of humanity, which posits evolutionary origins, has nothing on which to base a concept of human dignity, unless it borrows from the West’s Christian heritage, the very heritage it rejects. The ASPS statement also responded to various rationales offered for gender transition surgeries on minors. In response to appeals to “patient values and preferences,” it questioned “whether fully informed patients and their caregivers would endorse” a “framework that places a higher value on achieving more favorable aesthetic effects in adolescence and places a lower value on avoiding potential harm from early pubertal suppression.” In response to appeals to “emerging adolescent autonomy,” the statement argued that “patient autonomy is more properly defined as the right of a patient to accept or refuse appropriate treatment; it does not create an obligation for a physician to provide interventions in the absence of a favorable risk–benefit profile, particularly in adolescent populations where decision-making capabilities are still developing.” At the same time, ASPS did not fully endorse the patchwork of state laws that have been passed by lawmakers seeking to protect minors from the harmful effects of gender transition procedures. “The regulation of medical care is best achieved through professional self-regulation, rather than criminal law or punitive legislative approaches,” the statement argued. However, it advised members “to remain aware of state laws concerning transgender and gender-diverse individuals that may impact their practices.” This last statement underscored the overall nature of the ASPS statement as “a position statement, rather than a clinical practice guideline.” This choice was both because “ASPS has not undertaken a formal guideline development process” and because of “the current state of the evidence and variability in legal and regulatory environments.” The statement by ASPS is significant because its members are the physicians called upon to carry out gender transition surgeries, which are the most invasive, permanent, and harmful type of gender transition procedures. Its new position statement reflects a small but subtle change to the consensus pro-transgender medical organizations reached in response to conservative pushback. These organizations often claimed that gender transition surgeries on minors were vanishingly rare because they were almost never advisable — but they flatly repudiated any governmental attempt to ban the procedures they claimed never happened. When the Biden White House told the press, “We believe these [gender transition] surgeries should be limited to adults,” left-wing activists raised such a furor that the White House retreated to a milder claim, “Gender-affirming surgeries are typically reserved for adults, and we believe they should be.” In response to the ASPS decision, the American Medical Association — long infamous as one of the most vehement medical organizations in favor of gender transition procedures for minors — told National Review, “the AMA agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.” While National Review did not interpret this as a reversal of the AMA’s previous pro-transgender position, other news outlets were less careful; one claimed that the AMA “has reversed course on its position concerning transgender surgical procedures for minors.” In reality, the AMA statement leaves the door open to an undefined number of gender transition surgeries on minors — a stance identical to that taken by the Biden White House to satisfy left-wing activists. But perhaps the real fault lies with the AMA for claiming it “agree[d]” with ASPS, when in fact it does not. Regardless of the AMA’s obfuscation, Trump administration officials celebrated the change in ASPS’s position, which is attributable in part to the HHS evidence review. HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy commended ASPS “for standing up to the overmedicalization lobby and defending sound science,” as well as “helping protect future generations of American children from irreversible harm.” Meanwhile, Deputy HHS Secretary Jim O’Neill called it “another victory for biological truth,” as ASPS “has set the scientific and medical standard for all provider groups to follow.” Originally published in The Washington Stand The post American Society of Plastic Surgeons Recommends Against Transgender Surgery for Minors appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It appears President Donald Trump and his administration is ready to "just do it" when it comes to apparel conglomerate Nike. And by "it," we mean investigate Nike for "systemic race discrimination allegations" that negatively impacted white workers. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced Wednesday that it was filing...

The story behind the Queen musical that never saw the light of day

In my role as a musician and as a Pastor's wife I have had opportunity to minister to many families that have been hit with tragedy. Sometimes it is the news of a terminal illness afflicting one that they love, other times it is the loss of a family member through divorce and even death. Regardless of the life circumstance, it is good to be able to reflect upon some great Christian songs for comfort after that tragedy. Here are just 15 Christian songs that I hope will comfort you today. I have included a mix of hymns and contemporary songs. They are listed in no particular order as they are all very comforting.

When a man’s truck unexpectedly became an internet meme, he never imagined what would come next. Instead of ridicule, his community rallied around him with a massive act of kindness that changed everything.