Ever since I released episode 1 of Pumpkin’s Fighting Arcade, I was noticed by a fan server of Bloodrayne! They invited me with open arms and love so this is my way of giving back!!
seen from China

seen from Japan
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from Germany

seen from Brazil
seen from China

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from India

seen from Malaysia

seen from T1
seen from Malaysia
seen from Türkiye

seen from Hong Kong SAR China
seen from Singapore

seen from T1
Ever since I released episode 1 of Pumpkin’s Fighting Arcade, I was noticed by a fan server of Bloodrayne! They invited me with open arms and love so this is my way of giving back!!
Chao xing’s ex Fiancé
Kagan Firesword of the volcanic oasis kingdom
🌋🖤🔥✨
Chao xing’s ex fiancé
Kagan Firesword of the volcanic oasis kingdom
🌋🖤🔥✨
random Kagan doodles :P
“The Napoleonic era was one of the most dramatic in European history. New ideas, social structures, military organizations, and, of course, exciting military campaigns, followed one another with bewildering rapidity. To many, and especially to modern students of those times, the drama that Napoleon brought with him was a breath of fresh air sweeping away the stagnation of the eighteenth century. By contrast, the period following the collapse of Napoleon's empire seems a dark and dreary time. Bounded on the one hand by the drama of the Napoleonic era and, on the other, by that of the revolutions of 1848, the period from 1815 to 1848 was characterized by attempts to restore the status quo ante by unimaginative ‘reactionary’ regimes, and by oppression, censorship, and persecution.”
— Frederick Kagan, The Military Reforms of Nicholas I: The Origins of the Modern Russian Army
forgot i redrew the kagan reference
KAGAN:
Yenisey Yazıtları’nda kagan sözcüğüne rastlanılmamıştır. Zira Yenisey yazıtlarında kagan terimi yerine kan sözcüğü kullanılmaktadır. Bunun nedeni yazıtları yazanların kaganlık sahibi olmaması ve birleşik boy yöneticileri için ise sadece kan sözcüğünün yeterli olması olarak düşünülebilir.
Clauson, kagan sözcüğünü “Türk kavminin seçilmiş bağımsız lideri” anlamında olduğunu, köklerinin çok eskiye dayanan bir unvan olduğunu belirtmektedir. Kagan ve kan unvanları arasındaki ilişki konusunda çekimser davransa da esasında “büyüklük ve küçüklük” farkının olduğunu düşünmektedir.
Yıldırım, kagan sözcüğün “Juan-juan hükümdarlarının da bu unvanı taşıdığını belirtir.
KAN: “hakan, han, hükümdar”
Donuk, kan sözcüğünün kökeninin bazı araştırmacılar tarafından “Korece kwan ve Çincede kuan” sözcükleri ile ilişkilendirmelerine karşı çıkar ve sözcüğün Uygur Türkçesindeki tänrikän sözcüğünün son hecesi Türkçe qan unvanından başka bir şey olmadığını düşünmektedir.
Kâşgarlı Mahmud DLT’de xān sözcüğünü “Afrasyab’ın oğullarına han denir, Afrasyab’ın kendisi ise hakan’dır” ifadesine yer vermektedir.
Yıldırım, kan sözcüğünün “juan- juan’larda da kullanıldığını ve iki yerde rastlandığını” belirtir: “V. Yüzyılın başlarında Juan-juan idareci sülâlesinin ileri gelenlerinden biri olarak iktidar mücadelesi veren He-to-han adında birinin zikredildiğini ve bu verilere göre Juan-juan soylusunun adının He-to Han olarak telaffuz edilmesi mümkün olduğunu ve bu unvanların kagan yerine kullanıldığını” düşünmektedir.
Kök Türklere tâbi olan Kırgızların yöneticilerine “kan” denmekteydi. Tonyukuk Yazıtı’nda (T 28) Kırgız kaganı değil de Kırgız kanı olarak bahsedilmektedir. Bu da şunu gösteriyor ki kan, kagan’a bağlı veya kagandan bağımsız, küçük, imparatorluk seviyesine yükselmemiş devlet sahibi olduğu düşünülebilir. Taryat yazıtında Uygur kaganının, son Türk kaganı Ozmış’tan “kağan” değil de “ozmış kan” olarak söz etmesi de ilginçtir.
Kaynaklar:
1. Clauson, Sir G. (1972). An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
2. Donuk, A. (1988). Eski Türk Devletlerinde İdari ve Askeri Unvan ve Terimleri. İstanbul: TDAV Yayınları
3. Ercilasun, A., B. ve Akkoyunlu, Z. (2015). Kâşgarlın
4. Yıldırım, K. (2015). Bozkırın Yitik Çocukları Juan-Juan’lar. İstanbul: Yeditepe YayıneviMahmud-Dîvânu Lugâti’t-Türk, GirişMetin-Çeviri-Notlar-Dizin. Ankara: TDK Yayınları.
On CTIA v. City of Berkeley
We filed our opposition to CTIA’s petition asking the Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit’s conclusion that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Berkeley’s health and safety warning about cell phones. Here’s a clue to why no court in this FOUR YEAR litigation has yet to agree with CTIA — it’s effectively the same warning that the FCC requires manufacturers to include in every cell phone manual, just applied to retailers, not manufacturers, and no one, ever, has challenged that “compelled speech” by the FCC, including CTIA. You can read the opposition here.
But here’s a pro-tip for anyone trying to understand what this case is about. The issue before the Court has nothing — let me repeat, NOTHING — to do with whether cell phones cause cancer or any other harm to individuals. The issue — and really, the only issue — is whether a local jurisdiction must survive intermediate First Amendment scrutiny before it may require a health and safety warning.
That sounds a bit law-geek-like, but it is critically important. This is a classic example of what Elena Kagan was describing when she charged conservatives with “weaponizing” the First Amendment. Because the single and most obvious consequence of such a NEW rule would be exactly what conservatives want here — the end of the practical ability for local jurisdictions to regulate through mandatory warnings. This is, as we’ve said from the start of this case, the ghost of Lochner in the guise of the First Amendment.
You may not like safety warnings. I share a skeptical view about the utility of many of them. But never in the Supreme Court’s history has it applied intermediate First Amendment review to a mandatory health and safety warning. That’s why, in the last case where conservatives were trying to weaponize the First Amendment in this way, Justice Thomas wrote that the Court did “not question the legality of health and safety warnings long considered permissible.” National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 2376 (2018). Yet here is the CTIA asking the Court to create a new First Amendment barrier to something “long considered permissible.”
So if you’re thinking or writing about this case, please — at the very least —don’t become a tool of the CTIA publicity department. I’m happy to defend the substance of the Berkeley ordinance — which simply directs people to the manual if they want to avoid exceeding FCC RF exposure limits. But this cert petition raises an issue much much bigger than Berkeley’s ordinance. Focus on that forest, not on this tree.